Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

EEC Membership (Price Increases)

Mr. Cordle: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a petition signed by 53 housewives and others of Bournemouth.
The petition states briefly that there is grave concern in Bournemouth about rising prices for food and other essential commodities, caused by entry into the Common Market and the consequential cessation of cheap food from Australia and New Zealand. The petitioners are deeply anxious because of what they call,
… the ruthless speed with which Legislation … has been rushed through Parliament without due regard
to the implications of the legislation. I beg the House to note that I do not subscribe to the views expressed in the petition. The petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not approve the Treaty of Accession and do retain the cheap food policy so successfully operated in this Country for many years—to protect particularly those sections of the community who would otherwise suffer severe hardship, namely, the old-age pensioners, people on fixed incomes, and those with low incomes, and urge your Honourable House to debate this matter as a matter of urgency.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Argentina (British Interests)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Argentina to ensure that British interests in companies whose assets have been taken over by the Argentine Government are fairly compensated; and what replies have been received.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): The attention of the Argentine authorities has been drawn on a number of occasions since 1970 to the interests of British debenture holders in Buenos Aires Lacroze Tramways, an Argentine company claiming compensation for the nationalisation of its assets. Her Majesty's Embassy was given an oral undertaking in 1971 that the case would be looked into.

Mr. Rost: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Argentine Government's refusal to negotiate a fair settlement in the Buenos Aires Lacroze Tramway case, where the assets of British investors have been expropriated without any compensation, is a disgrace and is causing harm to the Argentine Government's creditworthiness and good will? Will my hon. Friend make further representations?

Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend will realise that the Lacroze Tramways is an Argentine company, although the debenture holders are British, and therefore it is difficult to make representation in international law. He will also bear in mind that there is a case before the Argentine courts at present which has yet to be decided.

Rhodesia

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Smith régime about the conditions of detention of political opponents of the régime.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): Before and during the test of acceptability we made many representations about the detainees. Whilst there is no settlement it is very difficult to obtain any improvements for them. But we shall be prepared to renew our appeals on behalf of those who were detained during the test of acceptability.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these detainees have been held in custody without trial for up to seven years and that the conditions of detention are only one more example of the erosion of civil liberties in Rhodesia? Is he further aware that his continued protestations that there is really not much that he can do gives fuel to those who argue that the only solution in the Rhodesian situation is violence? Is that the future that he wants for Rhodesia?

Lord Balniel: We did our best for all the detainees during the negotiations last year. Now that the proposals have been rejected there is no basis on which we can effectively intervene. Nonetheless, I undertook in the House the other day to make certain representations. These will be made as soon as my inquiries are complete.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's concern, may I ask whether it is not the case that the number of political opponents now in detention is rather small? Will he tell us the number and state how it compares with the figure, for example, under Sir Edgar Whitehead?

Lord Balniel: The number is smaller than during the period that my hon. Friend has mentioned. As a result of negotiations last year, 54 detainees were released, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact number of those at present in detention. Approximately 65 would be the right figure.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for undertaking to make further representations, but will he tell us how they will be made? Are they to be made orally?—we have no representatives there now, I believe—or in writing? Will he publish what he does? Even though—as my hon. Friend the Member

for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) says—the Government seem to take the view that there is nothing much they can do, is it not important that we should be seen to be making representations on behalf of these people, for whom we still have legal responsibility, especially as, quite rightly, we make representations to the Government of the USSR about the conditions of the Jews there, for whom we have far less responsibility?

Lord Balniel: As I have said, as soon as I have completed the inquiries that I have been making about certain of the detainees I hope to take action. Perhaps it can be left to me for the moment to decide what would be the appropriate action. I appreciate the general point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The people of Rhodesia must be well aware by now of the deep concern felt in the House about the situation facing the detainees, and the representations that I shall be making will, I hope, underline this fact. I hope that my representations will be given appropriate and due weight by those at present in power in Rhodesia.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking with the European Economic Community countries to ensure that they co-operate in the policy of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): Our views on sanctions are well known to members of the European Economic Community. The application of Security Council Resolutions by member States is a matter between the States concerned and the United Nations.

Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people—some of whom, unlike me, are in favour of Britain's joining the Common Market—are appalled that this Government have not put more pressure on our prospective European partners who are among the biggest sanctions breakers? Will he raise this matter and will he also agree to read or get his right hon. Friend to read the recent document produced by the Africa Bureau called "Total Sanctions or Total Economic Warfare?" which lists 58 ways


in which sanctions can be tightened up, including applications to EEC countries?

Mr. Davies: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the publication. I emphasise to the hon. Lady that in ensuring that the provisions of the sanctions are carried out the efforts of the Government are directed towards the United Nations and not normally through the European Economic Community, though nothing prevents these matters being discussed within the Community.

Mr. Marten: If the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) is right that the countries of the European Community are breaking sanctions, should not Her Majesty's Government have made it a condition precedent that we would not deposit the ratification until they had ceased doing so?

Mr. Davies: No, I do not really think that we should. My right hon. Friend on a previous occasion has made well known to the House the efforts that the Government have undertaken to bring to bear the objections they have to the degree to which sanctions are being breached. But I repeat that action has to be taken through the United Nations.

Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply has greatly surprised hon. Members on both sides? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in his view this is either not a proper matter to be discussed between ourselves and our future partners in Europe or that it makes no difference and that these matters could be dealt with equally well from outside?

Mr. Davies: Clearly the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that these and other matters were perfectly within the range of discussion with other members of the EEC.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this would be a suitable matter for discussion by the European Parliament in Strasbourg?

Mr. Davies: Fortunately it is not for me to state what should be the business of the European Parliament.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the United States of

America about American imports of chrome from Rhodesia.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): The United States Government themselves brought to the attention of the United Nations their decision to resume importing Rhodesian chrome ore.
The matter is one between the United States Government and the United Nations.

Mr. Mikardo: Whilst appreciating that Her Majesty's Government have little, if any, influence over the United States Government concerning their imports of chrome from Rhodesia, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a large part of those imports of chrome ore from Rhodesia to the United States are being carried in British ships and that all these cargoes are being insured with Lloyds of London? Is not that a matter on which he has power to intervene and, that being so, ought he not to do so?

Mr. Amery: We are investigating all allegations of this kind which reach us.

Mr. Mikardo: It is not an allegation; it is a fact.

Mr. Amery: As far as I know, it is an allegation. We are investigating these matters. As the previous Administration were sufficiently misguided to place the whole question of sanctions in the lap of the United Nations, their subsequent supporters must understand it if we leave the matter to be determined between the United States and the United Nations.

China

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Chinese Government on the exchange of students between Great Britain and China.

Mr. Amery: During my right hon. Friend's recent visit, the Chinese Government confirmed that they would like to send up to 200 students to Britain within the next year to study English.
The necessary arrangements for their stay are being prepared.
We have assured them of our readiness to give every help.
The Chinese authorities are still considering the requests we have put to them for facilities for British students to go to China to improve their knowledge of modern Chinese.

Mr. Dalyell: Since the Chinese Vice-Minister said last week that it was hoped to receive British students to China in the second part of next year, may I ask the Minister what discussions he is having with the Chinese authorities on how the students are to be selected? Are they to be 17-year-olds or 18-year-olds, or post-graduates? What considerations will be taken into account?

Mr. Amery: We have not yet received any advice from the Chinese authorities that they are prepared to receive British students. We cannot say exactly how the arrangement will be handled till we do. I think the normal way would be through the British Council machinery, which will proceed, as it does now in many other countries, with selection.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to China.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement following his recent official visit to China.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend visited China from 29th October to 2nd November.
He held talks with the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Trade and the Prime Minister.
The talks covered most aspects of international affairs and, of course, bilateral issues as well.
At the present moment in the affairs of South-East Asia and the Far East it was very useful to have direct discussions at Foreign Minister level about world problems.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the whole House will be gratified by the improved relations between the United Kingdom and China? Is he able to say what are the prospects that trade with China will be increased as a result of the visit? Can he give reasons why the Chinese

Government support British entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if, as a former Minister of Aviation, I welcome the decision of the Chinese Government to buy 20 Trident aircraft—the first of which is now on its way to China—and three Concorde aircraft, and to show an interest in buying the VC10, which, I hope. will restart this important production line, which has been sadly neglected.
I think that in their search for peace and détente the Chinese Government naturally welcome any development that will strengthen the cohesion of the Western European countries and their ability to contribute to economic prosperity and to peace.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Was the subject of Hong Kong mentioned?

Mr. Amery: There were naturally discussions about relations over Hong Kong in particular and about the resumption of rail communications and flights from Hong Kong to China.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We all welcome the Minister's statement about trade, but is he aware that while the Foreign Secretary was away it was officially announced that the Deputy Prime Minister, or Deputy Minister of Trade, or both, wanted to come here last August to discuss trade, but were told not to come because no one at the Foreign Office or at the Department of Trade and Industry would be able to meet them, because they were all on holiday? Will he see whether that is true and, if it is not, deny it? If it is, will he see that when people wish to come here on an official visit there is someone to receive them?

Mr. Amery: I was not at the Foreign Office at the time. I am not sure whether full ambassadorial relationships had been re-established at the time. We had had diplomatic relations for many years, but not. I think, ambassadorial relationships at that time. I am glad to say that I was happy to receive and to spend two hours in discussion with and to entertain to lunch the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is, I suppose, my opposite number in the Chinese Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: The statement about aircraft is extremely valuable, but will


my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the market for capital goods and equipment in China is vastly greater than the relatively small segment applicable to aircraft? What did the Foreign Secretary discuss about the supply of capital equipment generally?

Mr. Amery: When in Peking my right hon. Friend took the opportunity to draw the attention of the Chinese Government to our ability to help contribute to the supply of sophisticated engineering, electronic and other equipment.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the Foreign Secretary is visiting today, and will he represent to him that we should very much welcome his presence in the House for an early debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend is in The Hague today, and he will be returning tomorrow. He very much regrets missing Questions in the House. The difficulty is that Monday is now the day both for Questions to my right hon. Friend and for meetings of the Council of Ministers of the Community. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has already been in touch with the usual channels to see whether arrangements can be made to avoid a recurrence of this difficulty and therefore to make Foreign Office Questions later in the week, which may be convenient and attractive to those interested in these problems.

Mr. Callaghan: That sprat seems to have caught a rather large mackeral. Is the Minister aware that most of us find Mondays perfectly satisfactory and that the Foreign Secretary should fulfil his duty to the House and answer Questions here on the day when they are down to him?

Mr. Amery: I am not sure that the occupation of the Opposition benches fully endorsed the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. These matters are being discussed through the usual channels. As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning a foreign affairs debate, it is not for me to pre-empt the decision of the Leader of the House, but I will make sure that those remarks are conveyed to him.

Israel (Prime Minister)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel.

Lord Balniel: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Prime Minister of Israel.

Mr. Madel: There are demands in certain quarters that the enlarged European Community should mediate between Israel and the Arab States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have reached the point where direct talks between Israel and its Arab neighbours is essential and that for Western Europe to try to mediate merely postpones the day when talks should begin, and that that denies us a major European interest, which is direct talks between the parties in dispute?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend is correct in that direct talks between the parties in dispute would be most desirable. In so far as the EEC—the Nine—are concerned, they share the common desire to achieve a peaceful settlement on the basis of the Security Council Resolution No. 242. They are not at present contemplating any initiative to promote negotiations, although I am sure they will do all they can to assist. We cannot ignore the fact that one of the parties in the dispute has clearly stated the need for an intermediary. Ideally, this should be Dr. Jarring.

Mr. Kaufman: When the Government next communicate with the Prime Minister of Israel will they note the happy news of the celebration of Israel's 25th anniversary in May, and will this country be represented by a member of the Royal Family—since in the last 25 years members of the Royal Family have, quite rightly, on many occasions visited Arab countries, but so far no member of the Royal Family has yet visited the State of Israel?

Lord Balniel: We will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.

Mr. Fidler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a few days ago I returned from Israel after leading a delegation of


the Board of Deputies of British Jews, as its President, and that I have seen Mrs. Meier, the Prime Minister, Mr. Yigal Allow the Deputy Prime Minister, and Abba Eban, the Foreign Minister? Will my right hon. Friend take note of their urgent and genuine desire to meet their Arab neighbours round the negotiating table as the only way of achieving a lasting settlement in the Middle East? Will he use his best efforts with the Arab countries to urge them to come into such negotiations, and make the same representations to our new partners in the wider European Economic Community?

Lord Balniel: I am indeed aware that my hon. Friend made a most valuable visit to Israel, and I am looking forward to discussing the matter in detail with him. As he says, the participants to the dispute must come together before a long-term solution can be reached.

Anglo-Australian Relations

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Anglo-Australian relations.

Mr. Amery: Our relations with Australia remain as always very good and close.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On this festival day of loyalty should we not be assured that our fellow subjects from Australia, Canada and New Zealand will be treated here as members of one family, on the basis of reciprocity? Will the Government take note that there are those on these benches who will be unable to support regulations which are laid which are conducive to estrangement, separatism and republicanism?

Mr. Amery: If my hon. Friend is referring to reports in the British and Australian Press that Australians coming here will be regarded as aliens I can assure him that this will not be the case. They will continue, as at present, to enjoy full civic rights, including the right to vote, the right to stand for public office, and the right to join the police and the armed forces. There is nothing in the new immigration rules to make it more difficult for Australians or New Zealanders or Canadians to come here, or to make them less welcome. Ordinary

visitors and working holidaymakers, who together account for over 99 per cent. of Australians—and, I believe, New Zealanders—coming here, will not be affected by the new rules. Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians who come here to work permanently will in future need work permits instead of the old employment vouchers. They will not find it is any harder to get these than heretofore; it may even be easier. The House will be discussing the entire problem on Wednesday. I hesitate to say more now, and will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that that very long reply is also very misleading, and that it fails to deal with the real nub of the question? May I repeat to him a question that I put to the Foreign Secretary some time ago, arising out of a document published by the Labour Party on this whole question many months ago? Is he aware that it is the considered conclusion of most people who have studied this subject that the British Nationality Act, 1948, is hopelessly out of date, and that it was a great pity that the Government failed to put it right when the new Bill was introduced in 1971? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider seriously, before Wednesday, the proposition which the Labour Party has made that there should be the appointment of a Governmental inquiry into all aspects of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, to be accompanied or followed by an inquiry into Commonwealth citizenship conducted through the Commonwealth Secretariat? Is he aware that if he does not do this he will be under continuing difficulties about differences in treatment between Commonwealth entrants into this country, Europeans who come to this country, and others?

Mr. Amery: Of course, no one in this House would ignore the difficulties that we face, or could fail to be concerned about them. I would not, however, wish to anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say on Wednesday.

Sir F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that he will have to do very much better than this on Wednesday if the Government are to receive the support that they require? Will he also bear in mind, with


regard to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that if the Labour Party, aided by a couple of misguided Conservatives, had not voted the way they did in Committee last year on the Immigration Bill this problem would never have arisen?

Mr. Amery: I should say that I, personally, shall not be taking part in the debate on Wednesday, but I will see that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Loughlin: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his statement that it may be easier for the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians to come here will be widely welcomed not only in this House but in the country as a whole, and in those countries, too—but will he, in view of the fact that he has said this, make it abundantly clear in the legislation? Is he aware that there is increasing resentment in those countries, and that they are seriously considering whether they will be able to give to people who wish to emigrate from Britain to those countries the same facilities that they have previously had?

Mr. Amery: I take the point. I am not sure whether a legislative or administrative answer is required, but I will certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

London Embassies (Police Protection)

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him and by which Embassies in London as to the inadequacy of police protection in Great Britain; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Kershaw: As has been made public, I have received representations from the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt and from other diplomatic missions in London about their security but I do not consider that it would be in the interest of those missions to reveal details, either of the representations or of the

action taken as a result. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about police protection of diplomatic missions in this country.

Sir S. McAdden: Does not my hon. Friend find it interesting that the missions that are making these representations are those providing immunity for those who are mounting offensives in this country by letter bombs and in other ways? Does he not think that we should look with care at the question of allowing them to arm themselves and their subjects in this country, and thereby to act against the normal procedure of relying on our police protection?

Mr. Kershaw: I have no information that would lead me to suppose that my hon. Friend's allegation is correct, but we are nevertheless bound by the Vienna Convention of 1961 to give diplomatic missions in our country the protection they require.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it true that members of these missions are carrying sub-machine guns?

Mr. Kershaw: Not to our knowledge, but if it were to come to our knowledge we would take a serious view of it.

International Law of the Sea Conference

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy he will adopt at the International Law of the Sea Conference over the width of the territorial sea.

Mr. Kershaw: Her Majesty's Government have said that we are prepared to support extensions of territorial seas to a maximum of 12 miles, on condition that a satisfactory solution is reached to certain other related problems, such as passage through straits.

Mr. Reed: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be advantageous, in terms of controlling, protecting and developing our own continental shelf, if we were to exercise wider limits beyond the 12 miles in relation to waters overlying this area?

Mr. Kershaw: That is one of the questions that we shall be considering in the various forthcoming conferences. These will deal with questions connected with


fisheries and the continental shelf, and seabed jurisdiction. These are complicated questions and we have not yet decided whether it would be to our advantage to alter the present rules.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Norway have said that at the International Law of the Sea Conference they will be proposing an extension of the fishing limits to 15 miles? In view of the importance of the Norwegian fishing grounds to British boats, will the Minister undertake to have early and continuing discussions with the Norwegian Government so that a common policy may be adopted?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will know that we cannot accept extensive fisheries jurisdiction by a coastal State outside the 12-mile limit, although we are prepared to consider a provision for some degree of coastal State preference in certain areas of the high seas.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the subject of the jurisdiction of the seabed will be considered together with the subject of the width of the territorial sea?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. That is one of the problems that the conference will be considering.

European Economic Community

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent talks his Department have had with the countries of the European Economic Community on the preservation of the British fishing grounds.

Mr. John Davies: International discussion on fisheries conservation is conducted through the regional fisheries commissions for the North Atlantic, of which the United Kingdom is a member. We have, however, discussed with the Federal German Government and other members of the European Economic Community the problems arising in relation to fishing on the high seas off Iceland.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to preserve

the stocks of herring in the North Sea, we must have further negotiations with the Dutch, whose practice of industrial fishing is undoing the good work done industrial fishing to other EEC countries? years? Is this not a matter for the EEC and nobody else, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to stop the spread of industrial fishing to other EEC countries?

Mr. Davies: Certainly this and other matters affecting fishing come within the matters which can be discussed with our partners in the Community. I take due note of the matter raised by my hon. Friend, and will certainly consider it.

Mr. McNamara: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is far from satisfactory, in view of the great difficulties which faced Conservative Members when the whole question of fishing jurisdiction in the EEC was raised during consideraiton of the European Communities Bill? Is it not true that we have only a ten-year delegation for our fishing around our shores? Surely something should now be done to see that our fishermen's rights are adequately protected.

Mr. Davies: The matter of the rights of individual members of the Community at the time when the transitional period comes to an end will be a matter for further discussion within the Community. It is right to say that the arrangements which were achieved by my right hon. Friend of the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were on the whole extremely well received and very favourable.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not vital that we achieve international agreement to govern these fishing limits, including the Icelandic dispute?

Mr. Davies: This is within the framework of my main answer, namely that these arc matters for discussion through the regional fishery commissions of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his intention to treat the agreements reached in Paris at the Summit Meeting on 19th and 20th October, and recorded in the communiqué issued on 21st October, as international agreements within the meaning of Section 1(4) of the European Communities Act.

Mr. John Davies: No, Sir, the communiqué is not a treaty within the meaning of Section 1 of the European Communities Act, 1972.

Mr. Jay: Then will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that these agreements have no automatic legislative effect in this country? Will he also explain how, in the absence of a parliamentary Question, Parliament and the courts would have been expected to know this one way or the other?

Mr. Davies: It has never been suggested that the communiqué, which was the result of the Summit meeting in Paris, should be regarded as a legislative instrument for the purposes of this country. A legislative instrument is one passed by an Act of Parliament. This has not been. This is not really an appropriate question.

Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of other such communiqués have been expressly recognised as treaties for the purpose of the Act? What is the difference between those and this one?

Mr. Davies: I realise that a considerable number of individual instruments have been recognised, and were amongst those included in the annex to the White Paper to be treated as being within Section 1 of the Act. That is well known. But it has always been made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that in that annex there were instruments which were not treaties and which could not be so regarded.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman really must turn his mind to this question. We have had enough evasion. The last communiqué to come out of the previous Summit at The Hague was listed among the related treaties in the Appendix to the Treaty of Accession. I know because the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor told me that it is not regarded as a Community treaty. But what the whole country wishes to know is which of the various listed documents in that appendix are treaties and which are not. One must ask the right hon. Gentleman to make that information plain.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware—indeed, he has written to

me on this subject and I regret any delay in replying, but I have replied to him today—that defining precisely which instruments listed in the annex are to be regarded as treaties has been a matter of considerable discussion both through the office of the council and with the commission. There still remains a restricted area of doubt about certain instruments which I cannot clarify.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Heroin and Morphine

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate, from information available from international sources, of the acreage of crops grown suitable for the manufacture of heroin and morphine in each of the major producing countries, and of the amounts of heroin and morphine produced by these countries; and how these compare with the world's needs for legal use.

Mr. Kershaw: The figures in tons for lawful use in 1970 are opium 1,370 tons, morphine 177 tons, heroin 111 kgs. An estimated minimum of 1,000 tons of opium were produced illicitly. Details are to be found in the International Narcotics Board Report, which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Loveridge: In view of that very serious answer, for which I am grateful, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that each ton of opium illicitly produced can itself provide over 200 lb. of heroin, and that trade on this scale represents a very serious threat to the Western World? In view of the improved relations with China, will he now take up this question with the Chinese Government, and with other Governments whose nations are involved in this illegal production and traffic?

Mr. Kershaw: We realise that this is a very serious problem—although it is not so serious a problem in this country as in others. We participate fully in United Nations deliberations on the subject and we are contributors to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. I entirely agree with my hon.


Friend about the seriousness of the matter.

Fanfare for Europe

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what particular rôle he and other Ministers in his Department will play in the Fanfare for Europe activities.

Mr. John Davies: Arrangements are not yet complete, but it is likely that I and all Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, will be attending events in the Fanfare for Europe programme.

Mr. Marten: I hope that they enjoy themselves. Does my right hon. Friend think that at a time when this House is engaged in considering the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill it is wise to spend £350,000 of public money on celebrating an event which in itself is admitted in the White Paper to be inflationary? Will he think again about this matter?

Mr. Davies: No, I do not feel inclined to think again. The amount of money to which my hon. Friend has referred is only part of the total amount that is being expended. The rest is being found largely by private bodies. Moreover, it is right to remember that this country, with its enormous stake in the whole cultural heritage of Europe and the world, could hardly celebrate more aptly its membership of the Community than in the way we are planning to do.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a modern dictionary "fanfare" has been described as "a public relations exercise for a non-event"?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. Clearly the hon. Gentleman and I do not read the same dictionaries.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Since the policy of the Labour Party is opposed to entry on the current terms, does the right hon. Gentleman really expect the Labour-controlled local authorities which are now being invited to participate to blow a fanfare, or to blow something else?

Mr. Davies: I very much hope that all concerned will take this great event

in the spirit in which this country should embark on its membership of the Community—that is, not in a petty spirit of continuing criticism and bickering but in a sense of our regarding this as a real opportunity.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as this event will take place in the middle of the freeze it might be thought that because the Government cannot give the people bread they are giving them circuses?

Mr. Davies: No, it is not taking quite that form; nor is it intended to distribute brioches.

Libya

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to make an official visit to Libya.

Lord Balniel: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to make an official visit to Libya.

Mr. Kaufman: In further communications with the Libyan Government will the right hon. Gentleman tell them that all British arms supplies to them will cease until such time as the Libyan Government abandon their publicly-stated policy of being a haven for known murderers and hijackers? Will the noble Lord also take this opportunity of dissociating Her Majesty's Government from the cynical view which may be held in some quarters that Libyan oil is a fair exchange for innocent lives?

Lord Balniel: I do not think that the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman will have any influence on the policy of Libya.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May we be sure that no arms will be transferred to Libya of a kind which Colonel Gadafi might transfer to his friends in the IRA?

Lord Balniel: Any arms sold to Libya will include provision to ensure that they were not transferred to the IRA.

Indian Subcontinent

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following his recent official visit to the People's Republic of China, he will continue to consult with


the Chinese Government over policies towards the Indo/Pakistan subcontinent.

Mr. Amery: As I told the House earlier today, my right hon. Friend had useful discussions with the Chinese Government. We shall continue to keep in touch with the Chinese and we have since had discussions in London with the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs on a number of subjects, including those of the sub-continent.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two issues of a humanitarian nature which could affect the long-term stability of the subcontinent? The first is the question of legal representation to those detained or awaiting political trial in Bangladesh, and in particular the denial of the right of access to a British Q.C. to represent the former Governor of East Pakistan? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend concert action with the Chinese to press the Indian Government to release over 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war who have been kept in captivity for some 11 months since the conclusion of hostilities?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the realities of the situation and will no doubt agree that the two matters which he raised must, in the end, be decided by the parties concerned. We recognise the importance of the points which he has raised and I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend is apprised of them when he returns from The Hague.

Mr. Dalyell: What was said in the discussions about BOAC's entry into Shanghai or Peking from Delhi or Calcutta?

Mr. Amery: We informed the Chinese Government that we hope to arrive at an air traffic agreement and that we also hope to present them with a draft in the next few weeks.

Uganda

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the departure of Asian United Kingdom passport holders from Uganda.

Lord Balniel: All Asian United Kingdom passport holders have now left Uganda except for a small number who

were exempt from President Amin's expulsion order.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear beyond any doubt that the Asians have come to this country not only for reasons of common humanity on the part of Her Majesty's Government but as the result of a clear international obligation?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend is quite correct. I know that my hon. Friend also has a very special problem in his constituency. I can inform the House that is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on our general relations with Uganda before too long.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anger felt in the City of Leicester at the Government's total failure to help the city to cope with the current influx of Asian refugees? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the deep concern and anxiety of my constituents?

Lord Balniel: The resettlement of Asian refugees from Uganda is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I will convey to him the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

South Africa (Ambassador)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date Her Majesty's Government gave the agrément for the new Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa to the Court of St. James.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from hon. Members about his approval of the appointment of a new ambassador from South Africa to the United Kingdom.

Lord Balniel: Two hon. Members have made representation on behalf of constituents, about Dr. de Wet's appointment, approval for which was, on my right hon. Friend's recommendation, given by Her Majesty The Queen on 7th July.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is always


discretion in every Government as to who will be accepted as an ambassador to the Court of St. James? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two months ago Dr. de Wet was dropped from the Cabinet of Dr. Vorster partly because he was involved in commercial undertakings in respect of which a private criminal prosecution might be brought against him? We know that this Government will go to great limits to curry favour with South Africa, but is there no limit to the extent to which we will go to allow this country to become a dumping ground for those persons who are a political embarrassment to South Africa? Have we no self-respect left?

Lord Balniel: I reject completely the hypothesis on which the right hon. Gentleman has put that question. I understand that Dr. de Wet has denied the allegations. Beyond that it would not be appropriate to comment.

Sir R. Cary: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that no British Government curry favour with a Government abroad?

Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is quite correct.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. de Wet has been a bitter critic of an ex-Prime Minister of this country—

Sir F. Bennett: So has Cecil King.

Mr. Hughes: —Mr. Harold Macmillan—and has also made very bitter criticisms of the BBC, as I have no doubt Mr. Cecil King has? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that Dr. de Wet has said that the existing law in South Africa dealing with sabotage—which allows people to be condemned to death—is too mild? How can such a person be regarded as a fit ambassador to the Court of St. James?

Lord Balniel: I understand that Dr. de Wet is alleged to have made some statement about the Labour Party before he last served as South African ambassador in London from 1964 to 1967. Those years were under a Labour Administration. I am sure that he has sufficient experience to know what is appropriate as a diplomatic representative in another country.

Turkey

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Turkey.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. Judd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of growing consternation in this country at news of the erosion of democracy in a friendly country, at reports of as many as 4,000 political prisoners from trade union, academic and journalistic backgrounds, and at accusations of torture being used by the regime? No one under-estimates the extremist pressures which have been put on the Turkish Government recently, but will Her Majesty's Government represent to our Turkish allies that these methods are likely to play into the hands of such extremists?

Mr. Amery: I prefer to pay tribute to the enormous efforts made by the Turkish political parties and the Turkish people to ensure that parliamentary government is preserved. This morning, I returned from a meeting with the Turkish parliamentary delegation where very differing views were expressed by the representatives of different parties. When we consider what has happened in so many other countries I believe that we should admire the way in which our Turkish friends have been able to retain parliamentary institutions.

Iceland (Fishing Dispute)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the ministerial talks with the Icelandic Government on the imposition of 50-mile limit about Iceland.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the proposed talks at ministerial level with Iceland upon the fishing limits dispute.

Mr. Amery: A delegation led by my noble Friend Lady Tweedsmuir and including representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of


the fishing industry itself will travel to Reykjavik on 26th November for meetings with Icelandic Ministers.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is welcome news to know that this meeting is about to take place? How long does he expect the meeting will take, and what do he and his Department regard as the main bone of contention about which agreement has to be reached?

Mr. Amery: It would be a mistake on my part to try to guess either the duration or the agenda of the negotiations. I would rather leave that to the parties concerned.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for the time being at least, there is a mood of what I term qualified optimism in the deep sea fleet in Hull about the outcome of the talks? First, we are having good catches and, secondly, the Icelanders have been behaving themselves, in that they have not been cutting warps as in the past. Will he assure the House that this will not be a performance in semantics? Does he believe that because of the composition of the Icelandic team—they now have the Minister of Education as well as the Minister for Fisheries on their team—both sides will attempt to reach a decision and not just talk, as has happened over the past few months?

Mr. Amery: We shall go into the talks in a spirit of good will and with a sincere desire to arrive at agreement. As at present advised, we have no intention of adopting towards Iceland the kind of naval strategy which the Leader of the Opposition recommended towards Uganda.

Mr. Laurance Reed: In the discussions, what account is the Foreign Office taking of the fact that there is already a large measure of international support for the view that coastal States should enjoy preferential or exclusive rights to resources overlying their continental shelves?

Mr. Amery: These matters will have to come up in the discussions and agenda of the Governments of the two countries.

Scottish-European Relations

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-

wealth Affairs whether, in the interests of promoting firmer Scottish-European relationships, he will make a grant to the Scottish co-ordinating committee of local authorities.

Mr. Kershaw: Her Majesty's Government, while welcoming closer relationships between local authorities in this country and Europe, consider that the interests of Scottish local authorities are fully covered by the existing procedures and in organisations such as the Joint Twinning Committee.

Mr. Steel: Do not the Government think that this organisation in Scotland, which is helping to arrange further twinning between Scotland and Europe, is worthy of Government support? It is particularly helping to bridge the physical gap between Scotland and Europe, which is very important.

Mr. Kershaw: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the same body. He has in mind perhaps the Scottish Co-ordinating Committee. We have not had an application from that committee. If we do receive an application we will think about it.

Human Rights

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding raising at the United Nations, as matters of international concern, conduct by national Governments which discloses a consistent pattern of violation of human rights.

Mr. Amery: We take the initiative in raising these matters only when we are directly involved, when we have adequate evidence and when we are satisfied that our action will benefit the victims of the violations in question.

Mr. Archer: Does that mean that the Government are losing interest in human rights? Even given that somewhat guarded formula, may I ask how the right hon. Gentleman reconciles it with the reply given by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 23rd October, that political detainees in Indonesia are a matter for the internal affairs of the Indonesians?

Mr. Amery: It would not be fair to say that we are losing interest. As the


House will be aware, in the General Assembly my right hon. Friend recently raised the question of the Ugandan Asians. We have also pledged support in the United Nations for the United States initiative about the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union. Our experience is that there is not a great deal to be gained and perhaps, sometimes, something to be lost by raising individual cases.

Sir Gilbert Longden: What have Her Majesty's Government done at the United Nations about those people in Uganda, such as the Chief Justice and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who have simply disappeared?

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend has spoken on the subject of Asians in Uganda. We have very little hard information about what else has been happening, though we share the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend.

Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what communications Her Majesty's Government have received from the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreement;

(2) to what extent Her Majesty's Government have been consulted by the United States Government about the progress of the Strategic Arms Limitation talks.

Mr. Amery: The United States Government have been in close touch with their NATO allies in the course of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.
We have received no communication about the talks from the Soviet Government.

Mr. Jenkins: As it would breach the letter and the spirit of not only the SALT Agreement but the Non-Proliferation Agreement if there were to be any proposal of discussions between the French and British Governments about the idea of a Western nuclear armament agreement, will the Government undertake that no such discussions between the French and British Governments on this subject will take place?

Mr. Amery: The United States have made it clear in all their discussions that their talks are concerned solely with Soviet-United States relations and have no hearing whatever on any other aspects of nuclear policy.

Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that whatever reductions in armaments may take place in Europe, for which we all hope, there will be no further disruption of the balance of power particularly in favour of the Warsaw Pact countries?

Mr. Amery: We shall have this consideration uppermost in our minds.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would not the prospect of the SALT Agreement be absolutely ruined if there were a third force, a Western European military nuclear force, because either of the big two Powers would then fear that this third force might ally itself with either of the two and this fear of two against one would prevent the prospect of parity or even the reduction of nuclear arms which we hope will result from the SALT Agreement?

Mr. Amery: I do not think there is any quesstion at present of any third force in this sphere. The talks between the United States and the Soviet Union are purely bilateral.

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Southern Asia (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent official visit of the Minister for Overseas Development to countries in Southern Asia.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent official visit of the Minister for Overseas Development to Pakistan.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I made brief visits to Afganistan and Pakistan on my way to Delhi to attend the annual meeting of the Colombo Plan Consultative


Committee, after which I spent a few days in South India. Apart from seeing development projects, I had discussions with Ministers and others about matters of mutual interest; in particular, the purposes for which future British aid might be used.

Mr. Oram: During the right hon. Gentleman's visit, were fears expressed to him that when Britain joins the Common Market South Asian countries would suffer in terms of aid and trade? Was he able to assure those to whom he spoke that Francophone African countries would not receive aid at the expense of countries in South Asia?

Mr. Wood: No. I was fortunately preceded to South Asia by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, I understand, had been able to quieten many of the fears that existed previously.

Mr. Tinn: Is the Minister able to assure us that our programme of aid for Pakistan will be able to recover from any setback that it might have recently experienced from the temporary withdrawal of aid, particularly the dam at Tarbela which was itself made necessary because of India's unilateral action in the matter of the Indus waters many years ago?

Mr. Wood: We have continued our contribution to the dam and we have made available a loan of £4 million. We shall be considering further aid to Pakistan when we have the report of the recent mission of the World Bank.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister consider in that respect the future of such funds as the Commonwealth Education Co-operation Fund and the Commonwealth Bursary Scheme from which Pakistan has been a beneficiary in the past? Can he make alternative arrangements now that Pakistan is no longer a member of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend will realise that there are certain consequences when a member of the Commonwealth leaves the Commonwealth. The whole question of this kind of aid to Pakistan, however, will figure in the considerations which I shall make.

Mrs. Hart: Exactly what reassurances was the Minister able to give his counterparts in India and Pakistan about the consequences of joining the Common Market? Was he able to assure that in future the European Development Fund will give more than 3 per cent. of its budget to them? Was he able to assure them that the British Contribution to the EDF will be in addition to the existing aid programme?

Mr. Wood: I am sorry if I did not make it quite clear to the right hon. Lady, but the visit of my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Duchy had so allayed fears that these matters were not raised.

ST. GEORGE'S CROSS, GLASGOW (FIRE)

Mr. Carmichael: Mr. Carmichael (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the fire at St. George's Cross, Glasgow, on Saturday in which two people lost their lives.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Just before one o'clock on Saturday, 18th November, the Glasgow Fire Brigade received a fire call to Maryhill Road. On arrival it was found that fire had broken out in an unoccupied furniture shop. In addition to attacking the fire, firemen warned the occupiers in the four-storey tenement block to evacuate their homes. Fire conditions worsened rapidly and some of the occupiers found themselves unable to make their way to safety because of smoke filled stairs. Rescues by ladder were necessary both in Maryhill Road and in Great Western Road to which the fire had spread.
A full report is not yet available, but one woman and one sub-officer who was attempting to rescue her, lost their lives. Twelve persons were taken to hospital, of whom three were detained overnight.
About 50 families, comprising about 150 persons, were made homeless. All except five families, comprising 29 people, found accommodation with relatives; the other families were temporarily accommodated by Glasgow Corporation.
I know that the House will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives. I would


wish to pay tribute to the prompt and efficient work of the fire service, and to Glasgow social work department and the other services. It is too soon to state the cause of the fire, but a public inquiry will be held.

Mr. Carmichael: In thanking the Secretary of State for that reply may I extend the sympathy of all on my side of the House to the relatives to those who lost their lives and to those who were injured? May I also extend my thanks to the police, welfare services, the Salvation Army and, of course, to the fire service? May I make special mention of Sub-Officer McGill who died in the rescue attempt. I am pleased that there will be a public inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman now look at the conclusion of the Holroyd and Cunningham Committees on fire prevention, and particularly at the conclusions of his own Fire Brigades Advisory Council, all of which recomended a greater use of operational firemen in the inspection and prevention of fire as part of their ordinary duties?

Mr. Campbell: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member has suggested. The Glasgow Fire Brigade is tackling the special problems which exist in Glasgow. I understand that the convenor of Glasgow Corporation's Police and Fire Committee has called for special attention to be paid to all disused property, particularly empty shops under occupied tenements.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I associate myself with the sympathy for the vicitims of the disaster. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that thousands of families in Glasgow live in old tenement buildings similar to that in Maryhill Road, and that those buildings inevitably constitute a fire hazard? Will my right hon. Friend press on every occasion for the Corporation to rehouse these families.

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend refers and to which I referred earlier. I take this opportunity of drawing special attention to the particular hazards that this kind of fire can present.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State accept that there are special hazards in

these cases? Will he look into whether the fire service has the power to compel inspection of such premises and to ensure that they are sufficiently safe for the people who live above them?

Mr. Campbell: Under the fatal accidents procedure it is open to the inquiry to look into these matters and to make recommendations.

ROYAL NAVY (CATERING FRAUDS)

Mr. Judd: Mr. Judd (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will establish an immediate public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent catering fraud case in the Royal Navy.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I recognise the concern about these cases. From the time the alleged frauds were first brought to our notice, interim remedial measures have been taken. These measures have included the tightening up of accounting controls to prevent manipulation of stocks, and there has been a significant reduction in the amount of the messing allowance which United Kingdom shore establishments and Her Majesty's ships in home waters can spend with local contractors. We are setting up an independent inquiry into the financial control of catering in all three services and a further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Judd: I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful reply. Will he agree that the case has been a sad experience for the Navy, a worrying saga for the public and a personal tragedy for many of those involved? Can he assure the House that the inquiry will consider how this matter went undetected for so long and that it will cover the problem of introducing effective auditing methods in future in order to avoid a recurrence? Will it examine security aspects of the case which give some grounds for concern?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that it is a sad experience and one which is greatly regretted. The frauds went on for so long because they were mainly carried out by substituting false invoices for the genuine invoices. That could not be


uncovered by normal auditing procedures. The inquiry will examine the past events and consider what should be done in the future to see that such an incident does not happen again. We are considering the security aspects, but I have no reason to believe that any security risk existed because, while the catering branch is important, it is not close to the nation's secrets.

HER MAJESTY'S SILVER WEDDING

3.38 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, congratulating Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of their wedding; expressing the deep gratitude of this House for their contribution to the affairs of the nation and for their unfailing example in public and family life; and conveying every good wish for their continued happiness.
A silver wedding is above all an occasion for family congratulation and rejoicing. But the life of our Royal Family, maintained, as Sir Winston Churchill said on the occasion of the Silver Wedding of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, in the full glare of publicity which falls upon exalted personages, touches the hearts and imaginations of millions of people outside as well as within the Commonwealth of which the Queen is the head. The events which make up the chronicle of any family life, when they concern the Queen and her family, engage the interest and sympathy of all her peoples. All of us are in some measure partners in their griefs and joys.
This is, then, an occasion on which all of us in the House would wish to express not only our humble duty to the Queen but our affectionate congratulations to her and to her husband on achieving 25 years of happily married life.
When Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were married in November, 1947, they had every right to hope and expect that it would be many years before they were called upon to take on the responsibilities which her accession to the Throne was bound to impose upon them both. In the event, the call to the Throne came suddenly, on a winter's morning in 1952, less than five years after their wedding. For more than 20 years of their married life, the Queen has carried the full burden of the duties of Monarchy and Prince Philip has not only helped the Queen to sustain that burden but has also made his own distinctive contribution to our national life.
The Queen and Prince Philip have not spared themselves in their public duties. They have altered the pattern of those duties to suit the changing circumstances


of the time. There is less ceremonial but much more travel, not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth, and there are many more opportunities for the Queen and Prince Philip to meet people informally. In addition, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be able to confirm, the Queen deals with a wide range of submissions, papers and telegrams sent to her by her Ministers and takes the keenest and closest interest in the conduct of public affairs.
But the background to all this public service, a background without which, indeed, the public duties would be insupportable, is a happy family life with their four children. Those who were in the Abbey this morning and those who watched the service in their homes on television could see for themselves the radiant happiness of the Queen and her family which communicated itself to all of us present and to the whole nation watching.
In our generation, we have been able to share more fully than our predecessors in the private life of the Royal Family, thanks to radio and television. No one who saw the film shown on television a few years ago could doubt the secure basis of mutual affection, understanding and contentment on which that family life is founded.
The charm and the spirit which the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne already demonstrate to a wider world bear witness to the skill and success with which their parents have managed their upbringing, despite all the pressures of public duties upon them.
For 25 years, the Queen and Prince Philip have given themselves with unsparing devotion to the service of the Queen's peoples in this country and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. In this, they have been sustained by the love and the support of their family. I hope that they feel themselves to be rewarded by the admiration and affection in which they are held and which they have so richly earned. Their Silver Wedding provides an opportunity for that admiration and that affection to find expression.
I am sure that the House will be reflecting the feelings and the wishes of the whole country in conveying to the Queen and Prince Philip, by this Address,

their congratulations on 25 years of happy married life and their good wishes for the future. I think that it would be appropriate, as well as in accordance with precedent, that this Address should be presented to the Queen by Privy Councillors representing all parties.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I should like, on behalf of the official Opposition, to support the Motion moved by the Prime Minister.
This morning, at the Abbey service to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, this House was represented by you, Mr. Speaker, by the Cabinet and by representatives of the official Opposition and the Liberal Party. At the marriage ceremony 25 years ago, the House was similarly represented. I think that there are very few of us here today who represented the House on this occasion.
Over those 25 years, we have seen the continuing development of closer relations between the Royal Family and the British people, the growing informality in their approaches to the problems of the British people and the identification of the Royal Family in worthy national and world causes and concerns—concerns which are non-controversial as between parties—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like the Common Market."]—but which do gain greatly in their propagation by the support given by leading members of the Royal Family.
One thinks of the Duke of Edinburgh, for example, with his emphasis on environmental questions and problems. Indeed, I pick up the point that the Prime Minister made, about the active part that he and others have played in encouraging better organised business management, including, for example, the emphasis which some of the Royal Family have been able to lay on the quality of industrial design and on consensus relationships between the two sides of industry in the industrial conferences convened by His Royal Highness. These activities include also the problems of Wales, both before and since the investiture of the Prince of Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the hard work done by the Queen in the study of documents and telegrams. Some of this came out in the questioning and evidence before the recent Committee on the Civil List. The right hon.


Gentleman will know, as I knew, that an audience of Her Majesty, if the Prime Minister of the day has not fully done his homework and read all his telegrams, can cause a certain embarrassment for the Prime Minister, because he is facing competition.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as was said today in the ceremony in Guildhall, the country has had the benefit of seeing a happy Royal Family—indeed, by modern standards, a somewhat numerous Royal Family as a result of what we are celebrating today. As the Lord Mayor said in Guildhall:
Families throughout Britain have been able to identify with the unity and happiness of the Royal Family.
The nation is a family, and any statesman in this House over the years who has failed to recognise that has failed to recognise the problems that the nation is facing.
Also, as the right hon. Gentleman said—this also came out in the moving speeches that some of us heard at Guildhall and which will be reported, that others may read, by tomorrow—the Queen, in addition to being the Head of State in this country, is the Head of the Commonwealth. No Monarch has ever done as much as Her Majesty in relation to the Commonwealth and the identification of the Royal Family with the Commonwealth.
In an age when, of course, travel has become easier, when the world has become smaller, this has meant that she has been able to travel abroad, not as representing Britain to the countries of the Commonwealth but in her capacity as the Head of State of so many Commonwealth countries and as the Head of the Commonwealth for other Commonwealth countries which have abandoned the monarchical formula.
She has made a reality of the Commonwealth. In the days that we face ahead—again I take up a theme from the Lord Mayor today—it will be her duty as Head of the Commonwealth to assert the reality of the Commonwealth in days when there are so many who are beginning to doubt its value and discount its importance.
I would again like to associate the Opposition with the concluding words of the Motion, that all of us convey to

Her Majesty, to the Duke of Edinburgh and to all the Royal Family our every good wish for their continued happiness.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The celebration of any wedding and its anniversaries on the part of any person in these islands is one of the very rare occasions when the world at large can share in the happiness of the main participants. Seldom can this be more so than in the case of the Queen and Prince Philip on the occasion of their Silver Wedding.
It is inevitable that any person in public life lives his marriage under the full glare of publicity, whether a Monarch, a Cabinet Minister, a leading politician or anyone else in public life. Therefore, their marriage, for better or worse, intimately becomes part of the national life.
It is patently clear that, in the present case, the Queen and the Duke have been granted perhaps the most precious gift that can be accorded to any man or woman—a blissfully happy marriage. Therefore, it is a very personal occasion. We are not only recognising that: we also rejoice in the fact that their children, who are wisely sheltered from publicity until they reach maturer years—

Mr. Thomas Swain: And from poverty.

Mr. Thorpe: —each in time have dedicated themselves to the public service in a way which is matched only by the example of their parents.
In this country, constitutionally, the Monarch is the Head of State; but, in a more personal sense, the Royal Family are the permanent leaders of the nation. I believe that it is always dangerous to indulge in superlatives, but I very much doubt whether in the world there is any married couple who are more beloved than the Queen and the Duke.

Mr. Swain: Not in Clay Cross.

Mr. Thorpe: Therefore, today, as we congratulate them on their Silver Wedding Anniversary and wish them many further years of happy married life, the House will send a message not only of loyalty but one which I believe is also of deep affection.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: Perhaps the House might not take it amiss if we heard a few minutes of the flip side of the rather tedious, sycophantic and predictable eulogies.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to which we have just listened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—from the leaders of the three parties in the House. It has not been laid on as thickly as it was in the other place last Thursday, and for that we can be grateful, I suppose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: At least my hon. Friend can read.

Mr. Hamilton: My views on the Monarchy are very well known, and this is no time to repeat them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This tolerant House would howl me down if I did so. But I hope that the House will not doubt my sincerity when I extend to the Queen and her husband my own congratulations on this day and express the hope that they and all who are similarly celebrating their Silver Weddings today will enjoy many more years of happy married bliss.
Now I come to the gritty bit of what I have to say. There is little reflection in it on the Queen and Prince Philip. My first criticism is the sordid, greedy commercialisation of the event. The money-grubbing loyalists are busy cashing in on the irrational sentiments worked up on this unusual Royal occasion. One need quote just two or three examples. In the Observer yesterday, "By permission of Her Majesty's Government," we read about the production of a set of silver spoons.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: What about your book?

Mr. Hamilton: That is not by permission of Her Majesty's Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Money-grubber."] We are told that there will be
Ten magnificent solid sterling silver spoons of museum quality"—
whatever that means—
depicting the Queen's Beasts, ranging from the Unicorn of Scotland to the White Greyhound of Richmond, the White Horse of Hanover and the Black Bull of Clarence.
The price per set is £200. They are selling like hot cakes in West Fife.
All of us in the House have seen the advertisements for Annigoni's silver and gold plates. Only 2,000 of them are to be issued. The silver ones are £75 apiece; 100 only in gold will be £1,000 apiece. It would be very interesting to find out how many hon. Members have taken advantage of this unique offer, clearly a desire to cater for the masses.
We are a family, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said; but we are two different families. As Private Eye indicated, to prevent repeat orders Annigoni is to be assassinated immediately when the first consignment is sold. I give another example: a set of six Royal Family cameos, a "never before" issue, in gold and silver. If one buys them, there will be two free gifts for each client—a collector's cabinet containing a royal velvet plaque to hold the six cameos and a strut for the plaque so that one can stand it on the mantelpiece. They are going for a song. They are £14 each in silver and £120 each in gold; that is, £84 for the set in silver and £720 a set for the gold. Easy payments are provided for. Even credit cards may be used to purchase these unique cameos. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] No.
There is not much that the Palace can do about these things. But for the powers that be, the Palace might have stipulated that the profit from such undertakings might be donated to some charity, for instance, to the thalidomide children. If we are a family of compassion, this might have been a very imaginative gesture, not only from the Palace but from the people who are making these colossal profits on this occasion.
Is it so wise, I wonder, to celebrate the event by giving our schoolchildren a day's holiday by a simple wave of the Royal hand? This point is covered by Jill Tweedie in The Guardian this morning. The children themselves might be out in the cold wet streets, with their working mothers wondering what they are up to.

Mr. Cormack: What about ASLEF on Thursday?

Mr. Heffer: What about ASLEF on Thursday, then?

Mr. Hamilton: The answer to that is very simple. On this very day, four local authorities in Scotland are being


inquired into because they are disobeying the law on rents. Other people have disobeyed the law. I hope that the rule of law will apply to everyone, without exception. It is as well to remember that On this day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]
It seems to a lot of us that the way in which this day has been organised for the Queen lacks imagination.

Mr. Heffer: It has cost me £1 for a parking fee.

Mr. Hamilton: I believe that at this very moment there is a walk around the City, which in itself symbolises much that is wrong in our society and in the institution of Monarchy. I find it very hard to believe that this chore was the Queen's wish. The authorities should have let her choose how she wished to spend this day. As the Prime Minister said, this is uniquely a family event. My right hon. Friend referred to the evidence in front of the Select Committee, and how some of the members of that Committee were appalled by the workload that the Queen is asked to take on. Surely this day could have been an exception, when the family could have got together, could have discussed their relatively minor problems, being among their children, and could have had a nice, friendly chat, without going around among the City tycoons.
Perhaps the House will not misunderstand me if I conclude by expressing the hope that I shall be here when the diamond wedding anniversary celebrations take place. I hope that there will be considerable changes in the institution of the Monarchy and in the sycophancy of the House whenever an operation like this is undertaken by it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, congratulating Her Majesty and His Royal Highnes the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of their wedding; expressing the deep gratitude of this House for their contribution to the affairs of the nation and for their unfailing example in public and family life; and conveying every good wish for their continued happiness.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — COUNTER-INFLATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

[4th ALLOTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate that what has taken place over the last half an hour has been very important business, but we ourselves are not responsible for the fact that, even though the next business is also important, it has been guillotined. We have already lost half an hour. Is there any way whereby either you, Mr. Speaker, or the Government can replace the half an hour which we have lost? This is an important matter on which many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is, "No".

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be known to you that no copy of HANSARD of Tuesday evening's sitting, when we began our discussions on the Bill, is available anywhere in the Palace of Westminster. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the House to proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill when we have no means of checking the record of what was said last Tuesday evening when we were at the initial discussions on the Bill. I submit that it would be better if we could defer the Third Reading until such time as the official record of last Tuesday's debate is available for hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I received notice of the point which the hon. Member might seek to make. I understand that the Library is already looking into his complaint and may, indeed, now be able to help him. The debate today is restricted to what is in the Bill. We have the Bill before us.

4.3 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not believe that anything that has been said in the course of our debates on the Bill, whether on Tuesday evening or on any other day, has in any way thrown


doubt on the need for it. Certainly there is ample evidence that the public at large has fully recognised the need for the Government to act swiftly in the circumstances with which we are faced after the failure of the tripartite talks to reach agreement.
I believe that it is the view of everyone in the House that it would have been preferable if a way could have been found in those talks, not only to agree on the objectives of economic management—which we did—but also to secure those objectives on a voluntary basis, and thus deal with the very real threat that inflation poses to all sections of the community.
That has not been possible for the time being; and therefore statutory measures have become necessary. I wish to make it clear that we in the Government remain ready to discuss our proposals for the next stage with the two sides of industry and, if possible, to reach agreement on them. Those proposals, as we have said, will be designed to work towards the longer-term objectives on which we were all agreed in the tripartite talks. It was because of the time needed to prepare and to implement the further legislation that we considered it essential to seek a short standstill on prices and incomes. Hence this interim Bill.
In moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should remind the House that the circumstances of the standstill are entirely different from the freeze which the Labour Government introduced in 1966. The freeze which was introduced then was only one of a number of very severe deflationary measures which the Labour Government introduced at that time. Purchase tax was increased right across the board, deliberately putting up prices. Petrol duty was increased, so deliberately increasing the costs of industry and costs of every motorist in the country. The Labour Government even put up the duty on beer by 1d. a pint, and they cut Government expenditure.
The circumstances in which we are acting now are very different indeed, and not only because of the patient and determined efforts which the Government, and above all my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have made during the past months to reach a voluntary agree-

ment. The circumstances are also entirely different because, as the House knows, we are now achieving the target of a 5 per cent. rate of economic growth which I set in the Budget, and this is reflected in the decline in unemployment. It is just because the main threat to a continuation of that growth lies in an accelerating rate of inflation that we acted as we have done.
There is another important point. Our present problem, unlike 1966, is manifestly part of a world-wide situation. President Nixon has found it necessary to apply statutory controls to pay and prices. We have ourselves been having discussions with our EEC colleagues about counter-inflationary measures in the Community. In the summer the French Government announced a programme of anti-inflationary measures. The Dutch and the Austrian Governments have had discussions about voluntary restraint with both sides of industry but, I believe, have also had to consider statutory policies.
The fact that inflation is now an international problem does not mean that the problem is any less serious for us in this country. On the contrary, inflation is recognised in all these parts of the free world to be a threat to growth and to social and economic stability.
Why has this international problem become particularly serious now? One very important reason is obviously the difficulty of securing restraint in pay demands in a free society, without taking unacceptable measures of a deflationary kind which lead to increased unemployment.
A second factor has added to the trouble. For a number of reasons there have been sharp increases in the prices of important raw materials traded internationally, including particularly food. Bad harvests in the Soviet Union and adverse weather conditions in Australia and New Zealand have raised sharply international prices for grain, meat, milk and dairy products and wool. The price of coffee has risen substantially for similar reasons. These international costs are wholly outside the control of the purchasing countries like ourselves. Increases in these costs have resulted in higher food prices which are in no way connected with our entry into the EEC. What


we are dealing with here is a world-wide phenomenon.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Chancellor used the word "sharply". Prices have apparently risen sharply owing to weather conditions in Australia. Can the right hon. Gentleman define in percentage terms what he means by "sharply"?

Mr. Barber: No, I cannot offhand give the percentage increases of the various products I mentioned. There have been—I think this is accepted universally; indeed, there is no doubt about it—very substantial increases in the prices of the commodities I mentioned, namely, grain, meat, milk and dairy products, and wool.

Mr. Denis Healey: I accept, as I believe the House must, the serious problem that food prices are likely to rocket next year, for reasons beyond the control of the United Kingdom Government. Is not that all the more reason why the United Kingdom Government should cut the prices that it is within their power to cut?
Did the Chancellor read the figures published over the weekend showing that, in the last month for which figures are available, prices in Britain were rising at an annual rate of 16 per cent. nearly half of which was due to the rent increases introduced by the Government by the beginning of October?

Mr. Barber: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to take part in this debate.

Mr. Healey: I hope to.

Mr. Barber: If the right hon. Gentleman does, he will want to make his own points in his own way. The simple fact is—and there can be no doubt about this; indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman who aspires to be Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know that there is—[Interruption.] I shall say what I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman who wants and seeks to be Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know that this is a world-wide problem concerning raw materials and foodstuffs, all I can say is that he has no contact with any other major country.
We have said in the past, and we have made it absolutely clear, that the reason

why we introduced the Housing Finance Bill, which is now an Act, and the rent increases consequential upon it, is that we believe this is an equitable way of dealing with the situation. We have made it absolutely clear and the sooner the right hon. Gentleman realises that the better.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Mr. Barber: The present Bill is a temporary measure. Our intention is that the standstill shall be limited to as short a period as practicable. The fact that this is an interim Bill is also a justification for the powers that we have taken.

Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Barber: I do not wish to take up too much time.

Mr. Healey: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Barber: That is fine. I will give way then. The reason why I was hesitant in giving way is that a number of hon. Members muttered that there would not be enough time to speak because of the guillotine.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We shall not get into the debate anyway.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the Chancellor's statement that our rising costs are due to external reasons, could the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the Government are saying that the inflation is due to the wage increases by British workers? How does he equate his first argument, with which I agree, with the argument that inflation is due to workers' wage increases in this country? Surely there is a contradiction between the two. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference?

Mr. Barber: The only way in which I can explain it quickly is by repeating what I said a moment ago. What I said was that one of the very important reasons concerns pay demands. I then went on to say that there was another reason which was of universal application throughout the world, namely increased prices of raw materials, and particularly foodstuffs. Both are obviously crucially important. They are not only important in this country. I explained to the House in Committee last


week why I did not think it would be fair to others to allow increases in pay, on the basis of agreements or awards made before 6th November, to come into effect during the standstill. I think it right also that I should explain our approach to negotiations during the standstill. The White Paper makes it clear that if negotiations take place during the standstill, the implementation of any settlement must be deferred until the end of the standstill and will then be subject to the second stage of the policy.
The Government recognise that a number of negotiations were already in train when the standstill began and that others would in the normal course of events have begun shortly afterwards. I must emphasise again that the outcome of such negotiations will have to conform to the requirements of Stage 2. It can, therefore, be in no one's interest to take the negotiations very far until the guidelines for the second stage are known. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment would like employers to keep his Department informed of major claims received and any other developments.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Barber: No, I cannot give way again.
One of the significant aspects of the passage of this Bill, which the public will have noted, is that there has been no steam in the opposition from the Labour benches.

Mr. Lewis: They have not had a chance, with the guillotine.

Mr. Barber: Of course, there have been one or two lurid phrases used here and there during the Committee stage and there has been a certain amount of shadow boxing by the Opposition Front Bench, but there has been no real opposition throughout these proceedings. If I may say so, I think the Opposition have been very sensible in the low profile which they have adopted. They know—and no one more than the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—that the great majority of the people in this country support this Bill and the standstill for which it provides.
Nevertheless, I understand that the Opposition intend this evening to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. In doing so they will not be voting for any alternative policy. They will be voting for a runaway rise in prices. They will be voting for lower exports and for rising unemployment. They will be voting, as they voted before, for high taxation and restriction. They will be voting to slow down our rate of growth and to diminish our national prosperity, as they did before. The purpose of this Bill is to preserve that growing prosperity—

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: Have an election.

Mr. Barber: Do not talk to me about having an election. Who said that? Was it the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn indicated assent.

An Hon. Member: Lincoln.

Mr. Barber: Lincoln! Now I begin to realise why the right hon. Gentleman did not conduct his party conference very well. That was not a very intelligent intervention, if I may say so. The right hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that. The purpose of this Bill is to preserve our growing prosperity, and as such I commend it to the House.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was allegedly moving the Third Reading of the Bill. In fact, he did nothing of the kind. His speech fell into two parts. The first part was to give, on a very elementary level, his version of the current Government lecture on inflation, which seems to fall into this pattern, that inflation is due to wage increases plus world prices. But that fails to deal entirely with the crucial question facing the country which is: why has British inflation in the last two and a half years been so much higher than it was in the preceding years, and why has it been so much higher than in other countries with comparable experience? Other industrial countries, too, have wage inflation and inflation due to rising import costs. The essential difference between British experience and the experience of other countries is that in the last two and half years we have had a Government who have deliberately increased inflation for


their own purposes. It was the difference brought out by my right hon. Friend which the Chancellor completely dodged.
The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his attempt at a knockabout turn against the Opposition, which was really pathetic. What he describes as our low profile approach to this Bill has, in fact, been a approach that was set out in the reasoned Amendment that we moved on Second Reading. All our arguments in Committee have been consistent with that. Our attitude today is consistent with that. In other words, we are saying to the Government that, of course, we are concerned with inflation. Of course, we want strong action against inflation. Of course, we would like to see an agreed solution between the Government, the TUC and the CBI. But we oppose this Bill because the Bill is likely to make things worse. That is an argument that we have advanced stage by stage in whatever discussion we have been allowed, which has not been very much. But we have advanced it.
Of course, it is a different sort of opposition from the opposition which the Conservative Party deployed against the Labour Government's measures. Its opposition was an outright opposition to any constructive ideas to try to deal with inflation. Ours is a more thoughtful opposition. If in that sense it is low profiled, so be it, but we are certainly voting against the Third Reading of the Bill this evening because we believe that it will make things worse.
I want to speak briefly. Our main criticism throughout these debates has been the lack of balance in the Bill—the lack of balance between the provisions regarding wages and the provisions regarding prices. I need not elaborate on that at great length. Wages will be effectively frozen during the Bill, particularly the wages of ordinary working people, including low-paid workers. At the same time, pensions will be frozen, except for the miserable £10 hand-out, and a number of key prices are excluded from the operation of the Bill, or are included in such a way that the controls will be totally ineffective. All these matters were argued in Committee, and they need no repetition. Although the Bill appeared to us at first to be a bad Bill, it became clear during the Commit-

tee stage that it was worse than we had thought. Certainly many of the provisions are surrounded in confusion and in uncertainty.
The Committee stage was used to try to obtain from Ministers clarification of the way in which the price controls would operate. I think, in particular, of our amendments to Clause 2. We were met with replies which showed that the confusion is shared by Ministers, who clearly do not know where their Government stand on many vital matters. If they do, they are succeeding in confusing the House and the country still further.
For example, the Opposition wanted to know about the relationship of the Bill to the terms of entry into the EEC, with particular reference to steel prices and other prices that would be affected by our entry. On those matters we received no clarification. We wanted to know about the Bill's relationship to the Housing Finance Act, and whether there will still be the rent increases due next April, when the provisions of the Bill may still be in force if the 60-day extension is put into effect. Again, we received no clear answer from the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) wanted to know the effect of the Bill upon the farm price review. We received no clear reply from the Government on any of the vital issues which we put forward, which all concerned the cost of living and inflation. Ministers either confused the issues deliberately or did not know the answers to our points.
The Bill is sloppy and has a great deal of ambiguity in its provisions. Last week's truncated Committee stage did nothing to clarify the position. For example, we were unable to discuss the schedule in the very brief Committee stage which we were allowed. Paragraph 4 states:
This Act, and any provision made under this Act, shall have effect nothwithstanding anything in any other Act or statutory provision passed or made before this Act.
Either that is the boldest or most imaginative piece of legislative drafting ever presented to the House, or it is completely meaningless. That sentence taken literally seems to mean that any other legislation the House has passed will be overridden. It seems that it can be interpreted by Ministers as they see


fit. Does it override the European Communities Act? As I recall, that Act was supposed to override everything else. What happens if they clash? Which measure overrides the other? After 1st January, will steel prices go up under the Treaty, because the European Communities Act overrides everything else, or will they be frozen because of the provisions of the Bill, which also overrides everything else? The House and the country were entitled to know about such matters before Third Reading.
Perhaps the legislative confusion is an example of the wider confusion in which the Government find themselves. Either they can make a priority of going into the EEC, no matter how bad the terms, or they can make a priority of fighting inflation. They cannot make a priority of both at the same time. Of course, that clearly leads to the kind of confusion in which we now find ourselves.
What is the Government's defence to such criticism? Time and time again during the three days of debate last week we were told by Ministers—and we were told it again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon—that we should not be too discouraged, because the Bill is only temporary. We were told, in effect, "Do not make such a fuss. Do not worry too much. It will last only a few months and we shall have something more long-term a little later." It is rather like the story of the girl who said of her illegimitate baby, "After all, it is only a little one." That seems to be the kind of defence that Ministers are advancing.
We face a measure which will have the force of law for four months at least, from 6th November, presumably until the end of February. It will possibly apply for longer, perhaps until the end of April. This is a period of crucial importance with regard to inflation. During it we shall enter the EEC, with all the implications of entry on the cost of living in this country. We shall continue to be under pressure from rising world prices, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently referred. The cost of the devaluation of the £ in recent months will be felt more and more on our economy. Rising prices will have an effect on the retail situation. We have seen recently that, although the 12 months'

limitation on prices by the CBI was very effective during that period, in the following three months there was a much higher rise in wholesale prices. All of those factors, and no doubt other factors which I have not mentioned, will influence the situation.
At the same time, the Government's policy, which we have criticised repeatedly, will have a further effect on the situation, particularly if we are talking about the six months' period and not the four months' period. In April 1973 we shall begin to feel the impact of value added tax. We shall presumably have the rent increases during April under the Housing Finance Act. And, incidentally, there will be a massive increase in spending power by the richest members of the community because of the tax concessions contained in this year's Finance Act. Therefore, we must evaluate the puny powers on prices in the Bill and measure them against the sort of pressure which they will have to face.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the Government's proposals are popular. It is true that they are popular in the sense that people want action against inflation. But we shall have to see how popular are the Government's policies when people judge them by results a few months later. Given the kind of pressures which I have mentioned, the measures proposed in the Bill are totally inadequate.
Ministers have advanced the argument—the Chancellor did not do so; he advanced no argument, but he might have done so—that because of these inflationary pressures the measures in the Bill will help to some extent. There may be, because of the Bill, because of a total wage freeze and a partial price freeze, some slowing down of inflation during the next month or two. But every commentator on the problem, including Ministers in the past, has continually said that it is not worth while having a temporary freeze unless it is followed by a long-term policy. A temporary freeze on its own only creates pressures that will lead to a bigger problem in a few months' time.
The Bill has to be judged against the Government's proposals for the long term. That is why the Opposition gave priority in Committee to amendments to


Clause 1, amendments to defer the operation of the Bill. We did so to give the Government another chance to return to the TUC and the CBI to try to reach a solution. The Government turned down the amendments. The Government's present posture is such that nobody can have any real confidence in their wish to talk with the CBI and the TUC in future.
I put this point to the Government again. If they do not want talks, they had better say so because they are not doing themselves or their credibility any good by pretending that they want further talks if continually they go down a path which makes it less likely that any talks could be held with fruitful result.
The question before us is what will be the effect of the operation of the Bill during the next few months on the prospects of the Government reaching any agreed solution with the other two parties. In the next four to six months, prices will still rise. In the next four to six months, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has pointed out, some people will find ways of paying themselves more money than they are getting now or ensuring that their assets increase in value during the period.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can I help my right hon. Friend? A point which I have not been able to make earlier in proceedings on the Bill is that those who are campaigning for the Bill, and for wage restraint, therefore, are the very persons who go on radio and television to discuss the Bill, getting more money for a ten minute broadcast than the farm worker gets in a week. [Interruption.] It applies to both sides. The Government are not going to do anything about that.

Mr. Prentice: I think my hon. Friend is on the same point as I was on—that during the four to six months' period some people will find means of obtaining a higher income or increased value from their capital assets at a time when most people's wages are frozen, including the low paid, the pensioners and others with the lowest standard of living in our society. This is exactly the situation which will widen the gulf between the Government on the one hand and the trade unions and the millions of working people they represent on the other. What is more, during that period, we might

have, although I hope we do not, industrial unrest arising from the Bill, with penal sanctions applied under Clause (5), which we also attempted, without success, to amend in Committee.
I put it to the House that in practice the measures on which the Government are embarked will lead to a deterioration of the situation and will make it more difficult for the country to find a constructive, agreed solution to the chronic problem of inflation, and for that reason we shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I should warn the House that we only have little more than an hour left for the debate, so I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be brief, and I will do my best to call as many as possible.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: You have asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that I shall be. But I preface my remarks by endorsing the complaint made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that it is intolerable that the House should be asked to proceed to consider the Third Reading of a Bill the Committee stage report of which is not fully available to the House. The fact that Mr. Speaker indicated that we can speak only about what is in the Bill underlines the necessity of our having before us the answers given on specific amendments proposed to the various clauses of the Bill. This is an important matter because all parliamentary liberties are surrendered under pressure. It is easy enough to defend parliamentary liberties when there is all the time in the world. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to return to this matter when we come to consider the situation at more leisure.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped that there would be notification of pay settlements. Under what legislation are the Government now requiring the notification of pay settlements? Under the Labour Administration, notification of pay settlements was written into the Statute. Are we to proceed on the basis that a mere wish delivered from the Dispatch Box carries the force of law? If it does not, then the


matter becomes a selective procedure, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will weigh the full consequences, because others outside this House will be watching. Clive Jenkins will make sure that he operates only within the requirements of the law. On the other hand, everyone operating in the public sector knows that as a matter of course any settlement in the public sector will be made known to the Government.
I want to come on to one specific substantial matter. It has been referred to already. There is ambiguity on the subject of steel prices which I hope will be resolved in the Government's reply. The question is simply whether Clause 2 applies to the steel prices of the British Steel Corporation. The position is simple. If we move to a basing point system, even if there is no overall advantage to the revenue of the corporation, some steel users will have to pay more for their steel. I can do no better than quote from Mr. Ken Gofton in the Financial Times on 2nd November. He wrote:
Under the system"—
the basing points system—
British steelmakers will quote prices at selected basing points up and down the country instead of quoting delivered prices. Transport charges will be added from a separate published list.
Inevitably, this will mean that customers furthest from the basing points will pay more for their steel, while others will pay less.
Publication of the 'non-operative' list"—
that is to say, the basing point—
has been postponed, however, presumably because the Corporation considers that it might be an unwise document to produce during the national talks on prices restraint.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus to clear up the "one simple matter" of whether it was the Government's estimate that the basing points pricing system of the corporation would be in conformity with the provisions of Clause 2, he replied that there was no necessary conflict between the two. Let us take a look at Clause 2. It says:
Prices or charges … shall not exceed the prices or charges for transactions of the same description effected by the same person in the cause of business before 6th November, 1972.

No one reading those words can believe that anyone purchasing steel today from the corporation will be expected to pay any more for steel during the period covered by the freeze. But if we move to a basing points system those words are wholly contradicted. It is up to the Government to clear up the matter today.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was hardly a reason for supporting the Bill. He quoted as the main reason for the Bill that the great majority of the people want it. He implied that they were right to want it. Then why on earth did he not introduce it a great deal earlier? Why have we not had a properly thought out prices and incomes policy very much earlier?
I speak today confident in the knowledge that I am speaking for the only party represented in this House which would genuinely welcome an election. Following Rochdale, and Sutton and Cheam on 7th December, which we shall win, the 15 per cent. poll rating given us today in the Daily Telegraph would give us 40 seats, which is what the Free Democrats achieved in West Germany yesterday.
Nor was the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) good reason for voting against the Bill. He said that the Government had deliberately increased inflation. Does he means that?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend proved it.

Mr. Pardoe: The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be innocent in some things but he is not a political innocent. He knows what gets votes. The idea that a Government set out to do extremely unpopular things like causing inflation seems to me to be a nonsense. It is exactly like the kind of argument that one could hear the other way—that the last Labour Government set out deliberately to create unemployment. They did create unemployment but I do not believe that they set out to do so. It happened as a result of their policies—mistaken policies in my belief—and the inflation which has occurred is a result of the present Government's mistaken policies. I do not believe


that either of these results was deliberate. No Government would set out to do these things deliberately.
Throughout these debates, we have had that curious political animal the two-party politician in full flood. We have had speeches from each side which might well have been made from the other side only three or four years ago. I pointed out in Committee that our attitude from the word "go" has been consistent. We have been in favour of a statutory prices and incomes policy. We were in 1967 and 1968. We voted for it under the Labour Government, and we have so far voted for this Bill. Of course we tabled a series of amendments, some of which were discussed. We tabled an amendment to look after the low paid, and I think the Government will live to regret not having accepted it because it would have been seen as an act of social justice, as the freeze should be an act of social justice, and as a step in the direction of a prices and incomes policy, which in itself should be worked out as an act of social justice. We tabled an amendment on rents which would have meant a total freeze on rents. The Government were mistaken in not accepting it. We tabled amendments on penalties, and I think that the fact that the Bill has fines as penalties is a serious mistake.
There is one vital question I would like to put to the Government, and I hope we shall have an answer in the wind-up speech. I would ask the Minister who is to wind up to direct his attention to exactly what is the deadline timing. I have a letter here from a firm in the London area; it is a firm which has been in touch with the two Government Departments involved and it has been clearly told by the Department of Trade and Industry that the deadline is 3.30 p.m. on Monday, 6th November, but the Department of Employment says the deadline is midnight Monday to Tuesday. The Bill envisages that the timing is midnight Sunday to Monday. There are three possible times. This is important because a considerable number of companies were pressurised into accepting—I do not say wrongly—wage agreements during that time lag and it may be that they should he honoured, Although, on the other hand, it may he they are actually against the letter of the Bill. I hope that we shall have some definitive statement on that.
There are reasons for voting against the Bill. We set out many of those reasons on Second Reading. The Government have not changed any of them; they have not accepted any amendments to the Bill, and the Bill still arouses great animosity. It would be perfectly possible for my colleagues and me to say that while we voted for the Bill on Second Reading, tabled a series of amendments but the Government have not accepted any of them, and therefore we should vote against the Bill on Third Reading. In fact I am advising my colleagues to be utterly consistent on this. We want a prices and incomes policy, we have supported such a policy before, we think the country needs a freeze, and we shall vote for the freeze.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) claims the virtue of consistency, for what it is worth. I would claim the same, though from the opposite viewpoint. I did not believe in the prices and incomes policy under the last Government. I do not believe in it today.
I confess, however, that the speech by the right hon. Member for East Ham. North (Mr. Prentice) came as near as anything might to persuading me to vote for this Third Reading because of two propositions he advanced, though I believe them to be fallacious and possibly undesirable. He said the likelihood was that the Bill would have more effect on wages than on prices. All past experience in this matter demonstrates the opposite, and I see no reason to expect that this Bill will be an exception to that. Secondly, he suggested that the Bill might be a barrier to the prolongation and extension of the so-called tripartite discussions which want more endorsement, but what we have learned from the Opposition Front Bench about their support for a prices and incomes policy is that it is a steady progression to what many of us see as an outline of the corporate State system, and if I thought this Bill to be an effective barrier to that progress I would be more inclined to vote for it tonight.
However, in deference to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should be brief, I shall confine myself to a few brief points. First and foremost is the


question of steel prices to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has already referred. I take the precisely opposite view from that of my hon. Friend. I saw and welcomed a prospect of the British Steel Corporation recovering autonomy over its pricing and welcomed the prospect of the European Coal and Steel Community preventing constant Government interference, with all the disastrous effects which this has had and is having day by day on the total financing of the nationalised industries. However, like my hon. Friend, I, too, feel that we must know where we stand.
My hon. Friend referred to an answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs gave me on my intervention on Wednesday night. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the comments by Mr. Gofton in the Financial Times. We do not need to turn to Mr. Gofton. We have the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who also on Wednesday told us that, while it is possible to translate the pricing level to other prices into the new system, it is the case that some steel consumers will pay more under the new system just as some others will pay less. We have the words of Ministers that some consumers under the basing price system will be required to pay more.
Is this going to happen during the freeze under the Bill or is it not? We need to know this because, apart from anything else, we know that in Scotland steel consumers will be required to pay higher prices. Prices will be frozen by the legislation at the point at which the basing price system comes in, and we are to introduce the basing price system from 1st January. I suggest to my right hon. Friends that the House cannot, in all fairness, be expected to give the Third Reading to this Bill unless and until we have an answer to that point, and we must have the answer this evening. This is important.
It is also important that one should have some indication of what Ministers expect will happen when the standstill is over, because the differential between BSC prices and the remaining prices of the European Coal and Steel Communities will be very large. Do they believe

that the Community will agree to give us a further extension of subsidies of prices in competition with the other producers in the Community? Even if they do, I do not. I can well imagine that the Community can accept the existence of the standstill for the period of the standstill, but thereafter it will insist that we return to realistic pricing, and the rapid and immediate abolition of subsidisation, and the effect on prices could be dramatic.
I declined to lend my support to the Bill at Second Reading because I could not see that there was adequate evidence that it was to be used as a support for the treatment of inflation at source, namely, for the gradual restraint on the growth of the money supply and the gradual restraint on public sector expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly reassured me this afternoon on this point because he said—I believe I am quoting him correctly—that the Labour Government cut Government expenditure. This was shorthand for saying that they cut the rate of increase in Government expenditure. Can we draw the conclusion—I do not see what other conclusion can be drawn—that it is the Government's intention to cut the rate of increase in public expenditure? I see that the Financal Times this morning is predicting that the rate of increase in public expenditure next year will grow, and the consequences for the growth of money supply and consequentially for inflation in the months ahead could hardly be clearer.
One further point in passing. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), have claimed the statutory prices and incomes policy to be fairer for the lower paid than these remedies for inflation which some of us have been urging through curtailment of inflation at source via monetary policy and the control of public expenditure. My right hon. and hon. Friends should contrast what has happened under the Bill between the claim of the farmworkers and the claim of the electricity supply workers. I do not think that anybody could honestly describe the electricity supply workers as among the lowest-paid members of our community, but, unlike the farmworkers, they have the ability


to cause considerable industrial disruption, and I suspect that what has happened is not entirely unconnected with that.
What is to be one's attitude to the Bill on Third Reading? To vote against it would be to say that its malodorous overtones—and it certainly has them, largely the application of a straitjacket to the economy, provision for a whole network of snoopers, the risk of confrontations and the law being brought into contempt—were likely to materialise in practice. I do not believe any such thing. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry who the other night remarked that the whole tone and purpose of the Bill was that it would not be invoked.
I do not think that we shall see my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General exercising his powers under the Bill for one moment. It would be to assume that the Bill was actually to be applied as to the letter to attach to it the importance that would be implied by voting against it.
On the other hand, to vote for the Bill would be to subscribe to the popular superstition that a six months' freeze is a positive step towards the curing of inflation, and it is nothing of the kind. I shall therefore pursue the same course as on Second Reading and abstain.
However, in conclusion I should like to make the following comment. We have heard much today, and we shall hear more in future, about the prospect of a full-blown statutory policy, of indefinite duration and with all the malodorous aspects of the Bill to follow. In that case we may be sure that the malodorous aspects would be applied in practice. For myself, I give due warning at this stage that that is the sort of legislation that I would oppose.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have not spoken on this subject during the whole progress of the Bill, mainly for the reason that in all honesty I could not speak in support of amendments which in my view would have made little difference. I realise that by voting I was compromising, but I took the view that recording my vote was not reprehensible.
I should like to take up the challenge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is not listening, but that does not matter, for he rarely does. He challenged the Opposition to do something about a by-election at Lincoln. He should do a little research, for it would show him that the Conservative Party does not have a candidate. We are ready to fight Lincoln—

Mr. Barber: Mr. Barber rose—

Mr. Skinner: I will not give way; the Chancellor has never given way to me. The Conservatives do not even have a candidate at Lincoln.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not deal with rents, because of the supposed fairness of the Housing Finance Act. It is remarkable that, although that Act is supposed to be fair and just to all sections of society but especially council tenants, the October Index of Retail Prices showed that half of the reason for the largest ever increase in 18 months was the rise in rents.
I shall not deal with the comments of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who spoke for the Liberal Party. No doubt he will consult Cyril and they will decide how to vote on this and other matters.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was concerned about the money supply and its continued increase. I have news for him: he has not been studying the Financial Times properly; he has not been reading all the Press reports; he has not kept his ear close enough to the grapevine.
Only a few days ago the Government agreed with the local authorities that rate increases in 1973–74 should be kept down to about 4 per cent. They had to tell the local authorities—behind cupped hands, of course—that that would mean that councils would have to restrict their expenditure on schools, hospitals, roads, welfare services, and so on.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It was my understanding that the local authorities were told that they would receive a substantially larger Exchequer grant to compensate them for their restraint. Presumably, that Exchequer grant would come from the printing presses.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should not be too worried about that, For


eight or nine months he has been standing on his head to support the Government on most issues. He may have spoken against it, but he has gone into the Lobby to support it, or not gone into the Lobby against it. He fails to remember that one of the first things the Government did was to cut the Exchequer rate support grant by half. The Government are now making a modest increase of perhaps ½ per cent. They may also restore the cuts in the domestic rate element, but that does not mean increasing that support beyond what it was when the Government cut it. The hon. Gentleman need not be too worried.
There is a restriction on the money supply and there is a good reason why it is bound to continue. It will be continued because of the mere presence of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and others whose opinions are becoming louder every day. They are winning the battle, and when we get to the second stage of this legislation there will be a further restriction on the money supply. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor will have to impose that restriction in order to pacify the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, for the Government cannot afford to have too many Members abstaining.
Within the last four months we have had a balance of payments deficit of £338 million, and the Government cannot allow that to continue. They have the option of making a run for it, making a dash, blaming the trade unions and going to the country in order to escape the Powellites. Thus, to survive the Prime Minister has to take the other course, which is that of the hon. Member for Oswestry: the hon. Member knows that he is on the winning side.
One feature of the debate has disturbed me considerably. I am not concerned about what is said by hon. Members opposite, but I have been concerned to hear my right hon. and hon. Friends say that they were sorry that the talks should have failed. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) almost said it together.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford has ever con-

sidered the implication of these matters. If he is sorry that the talks have failed on this occasion, it means that he must be happy about their succeeding on another occasion with a Tory Government—in other words, to rescue a Tory Government. That is the implication of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying. When they pour out their crocodile tears—and I hope that they are only crocodile tears—they must realise that they are saying that they hope the talks will succeed so that the Government can survive. I am not saying that they have put the issue in those words. What they have been saying is that they are concerned about the national interest.
The "national interest" is a good old bogyman, one which I have heard mentioned many times. But when the national interest is at stake, it is always wage claims that come under the hammer. That is what is happening under the terms of this Bill. We are again seeing the spectacle of a Government who are standing on their heads; indeed, the Prime Minister has almost been flat on his back in the past 18 months. All this has happened under a Tory Government, and once again it is the trade unions which have to suffer.
My hon. Friends should have realised long ago—possibly some of them never will realise—that there is only one way to defeat Governments such as the present Government. It is by taking the advice of the miners, the railwaymen and the dockers, who have already defeated the Government. They are the people who made the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand on their heads.

Mr. Pardoe: They also defeated the last Government.

Mr. Skinner: It is a good thing they did because we must not forget that it is the workers, not the Government, who are the custodians of the national fortunes. When the workers decide to stop work, it is they who decide whether the economy will grow or will stop growing. My hon. Friends should understand that that is the situation. I hope that this lesson will get across to a few of my hon. Friends so that when we have a chance to have a further crack at the Government we shall seek to do something for those who have put us there.
The Government found themselves in a desperate situation last February. The situation became worse during the next two or three months, and the tragedy was that the TUC was even prepared to meet the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in talks at Downing Street. They should never have met under those circumstances. Had those talks not taken place, we might not have been faced with this kind of Bill.
It should be on record that when the TUC leaders—men who were representing nobody but themselves—went along to Chequers before the Trades Union Congress took place, they had no mandate from anybody to do what they did. They should have said openly to the Prime Minister "We shall take part in none of these talks unless certain things are done first." They should have said that the Government's policies which were most contentious in the eyes of the TUC should have been rolled back completely. I refer to the removal of the Housing Finance Act and the scrapping of the Industrial Relations Act. Furthermore, they should have asked for a £10 increase in pension for single persons and £16 for a married couple because this was a demand laid down by the TUC. These conditions should have been made known to the Prime Minister even before the parties met. However, this did not happen, and we are now faced with this Bill.
We all remember the occasion when the Prime Minister went on television and told the country that he considered that none of the participants in the tripartite talks should seek to do anything inconsistent with the package—namely, in terms of controlling inflation and consistent with the growth of the economy. He stressed that nobody should impair the package. But what happened five days later? The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then announced that the Housing Finance Act would continue. This meant that 4 million tenants would face increases of 75p to £1. That was the kind of hypocritical way in which the Government acted.
There is a small nucleus of councils which is not implementing the Housing Finance Act. Those councils are tackling inflation at its source. They are not talking about these matters as we have been doing in the past weeks, but they

are taking action to tackle this problem. They are freezing the rents of their tenants, just as the Minister for Housing and Construction declared on Thursday that 150,000 private tenants would have their rents frozen on 1st January. That, again, is an example of the hypocrisy of the present Government.
If we agree to this Bill going forward—and I suppose in the end it will go forward—and if my right hon. and hon. Friends continue to talk the language of moderation about going to Downing Street and Chequers, suggesting that TUC leaders should appear to be responsible—and this is against a background of surtax payers retaining the money they have got back from the Tory Government—we shall merely be allowing the Government to get "off the hook". The Government will then go forward with the second stage.
We all know that last winter this country experienced the highest ever unemployment figures for 30 years, and we shall see that situation repeated over and over again. In that kind of context the Government, in my view, will make a run for it and will use the TUC, the trade unions and the Labour movement as a scapegoat. We must be constantly on our guard against such tactics, for these have been the tactics of the Prime Minister ever since he suffered defeats at the hands of the workers a few months ago.
I end by saying that this Bill was sired by the Prime Minister—in fact, I am not sure whether it was sired or just born—out of the Downing Street talks, and it was only due to the pressure by the rank and file working class that the talks never got off the ground. Therefore, this legislation was born out of wedlock and we are now discussing a bastard Bill. I hope we shall see to it that we shall never again be faced with this situation. If a Labour Government are put in power, they will have to carry the crosses which will be placed upon them by the Tory Government if they get away with it as they have done up to now.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I shall not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) very closely, except to say that listening


to speeches like his, which are representative of a very wide cross-section of opinion in the trade union movement, leads me to believe that we had no choice but to move towards a statutory position.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speeches throughout the coal debates, when he gloried in the fact that his trade union—he boasts constantly of representing his union—had the country by the throat and intended to enjoy it. The hon. Gentleman says what he believes and feels. He speaks openly and honestly, and he represents a major element in his movement.
I, too, have made my share of speeches against statutory incomes policies. It is my good fortune that not as many people read reports of my speeches in the Northampton Chronicle and Echo as read the speeches of other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the columns of HANSARD. Many right hon. and hon. Members have speeches against incomes policies to their credit. However, I made mine in the privacy of small meetings which were not widely reported. But I admit that I made them, and I am also prepared to admit that I have changed my mind.
What changed my mind was the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members opposite and prominent trade unionists and my growing feeling that there was a body of opinion in the trade union movement which had a vested interest in pushing inflation ahead. That section of the trade union movement saw inflation as a weapon with which to attack this Government. It was my feeling that there was such a body of opinion prepared to do that which was a major factor in my change of mind.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, in the Second Reading debate, that we must not blame the monopoly power of the trade union movement for the current situation since the increase in the power of the trade union monopolies in the past five years had not been significant. My right hon. Friend wanted to base his case on the money supply, and I believe, as does my right hon. Friend, that tighter control of the money supply is vital. He argued that, although there is monopoly power in the trade union movement, there had not been any substantial increase in it in the past five

years. However, in my view there has been a significant change in the attitude of the trade union movement to its monopoly power. Right hon. and hon. Members like the hon. Member for Bolsover have begun to realise what they can do if they misuse that monopoly power.
I say, in passing, to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is a waste of time for us to discuss monopolies and to have a Monopolies Bill until we face this vital problem of the monopoly power of the trade union movement within the public monopolies. Unless the Bill covers public monopolies and the trade union power within them, the fact that we stop Boots merging with Glaxo means that we prefer to fight the pygmies rather than the gians in our society.

Mr. Heffer: When did the hon. Gentleman change his mind about a statutory policy?

Mr. Parkinson: I am about to tell the hon. Gentleman. I started to change my mind over a period of time. This summer I visited a very large company in my constituency which had no labour problems and no problems with trade union militants. It had a good record of labour relations. It was expanding. It had declared no redundancies, and it was about to build another 30,000 square feet of factory space and employ additional labour. The managing director told me that the company had been very lucky last year to get away with a settlement of 9½ per cent. but that this year it could not expect to get away with less than 14 per cent. There was a company with no problems talking about 9½ per cent. as a lucky settlement and planning to settle in forthcoming negotiations for 14 per cent.
I have to declare my interest in that I am the chairman of a number of small companies. In my own businesses I had begun to settle for between 10 and 12 per cent. I expected to be able to pass on the increased costs because my customers had started to expect prices to go up. They had begun to plan to put up their own prices. In that way we were all starting to live with and to discount inflation.
That is extremely dangerous. When we start to accept that there will be inflation, when we discount it and are


prepared to hand it on, and when our customers expect it and accept it, we are entering a dangerous inflationary situation where the spiral begins to accelerate. There is nothing wrong in changing one's mind when one sees a mortally dangerous situation developing. The moment that we start to live with, to accept and to discount inflation we are in very serious trouble. Therefore, I do not believe that the Government had any choice but to do what they are doing.
I support the Bill wholeheartedly. There had to be a stop and a stepping back from the precipice towards which we were rushing. We were all learning to live with, to accept and to discount inflation. The Bill will give us a chance to take a further look at the situation. It is vitally important that we do it.
The fact that we in this House enjoy tossing at each other quotations from six-year-old speeches is about as relevant to today's situation as weeping nostalgic tears about the fact that England's football team is not what it was when we won the World Cup. In 1972 the country expects us to deal with the problems of 1972 and spend our time on those problems. The big problem today is inflation. The danger was that we were learning to live with it. This Bill will impose a moment for rethought and a stepping back. It is vital that we have it.
If we are to get any benefit from this very necessary Bill it is vitally important to get over the fact to everyone in the country that it applies to all. I take no pleasure from the fact that we have said that farm workers cannot have their increase but that we are prepared to allow increases which have been built into contracts of employment and into incremental salary scales. If this Bill is to do what we hope it will, it must be seen to be fair and it must apply right across the board.
At lunchtime I was at a meeting with a group of employers who employ thousands of people. They did not seem to realise the extent to which the Bill applied to them and that their industry would have to live with it. We must get over to people that the Bill is necessary. But to be fair it must be far-reaching. I hope that we shall use all the means of propaganda at our disposal to demonstrate that it is meant not to catch only a few unfortunate people but to apply

right across the board. Given this and given the critically inflationary situation which was developing, support the Bill.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) revealed that he understood something of the nature of the bog and morass into which we are moving. However, because of the truncated nature of the debate I intend to limit myself to asking four questions.
The first question is to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During his speech he told us that, of course, there would be sharp price rises, and he gave as a reason for them the nature of the weather in Australia. It was not I who introduced the Australian weather. When I asked him gently what he meant by "sharply", the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know. If statements of that kind are to be made in major Treasury briefs, surely there should be some supporting evidence. Time and again we get these unsubstantiated statements from the Treasury. The Department is at such an advantage in getting information that it should be able to support them.
My second question concerns broken faith. I will give one example. The local branch of NSDAW in Bo'ness is concerned that it is unable to be paid a pay rise in December which had been promised in May. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) knows what I am talking about. There was a clear understanding that £1 would be paid in December, that being promised in May. I wonder whether the Government have understood the extent to which broken faith—this example can be repeated hundreds of times—is damaging the whole climate of industrial relations. Undertakings were given in good faith, and they are not being kept.
My third question relates to the long discussion that we had on the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. I cannot go into details. First, there is not time, and, secondly, the late night difference of opinion is neither in the Library nor in print elsewhere. I should like to know whether the Treasury has considered it. Certainly it is still our impression, from talks over the weekend, that a specific undertaking was given by the Scottish National Farmers Union to withhold the


timing of the rise to oblige the Government in different circumstances. Therefore, something of a moral obligation at least is involved.
My fourth question concerns a point which I have raised in earlier debates. If it is considered right in these economic circumstances to do something for old-age pensioners—heaven knows, it is, however paltry we may think it—and for a whole list of other categories which the Minister read out, I should think there is still some obligation to do something for widows under 60. I do not understand this somewhat arbitrary differentiation of categories.

5.22 p.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford: I shall be exceedingly brief in my remarks supporting the Bill. My main reason for doing so is that I disagree with the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in a fundamental proposition that he has put forward throughout the debates on the Bill.
In a mixed economy, which we have, it is not surprising that we should have a mixed type of inflation. A situation of under-utilisation of plant and capital with unemployment would more classically be regarded as a deflationary situation. Yet in this peculiar mixture over the last four years we have had rising prices.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a point that struck me quite forcibly; namely, that over the years the level of rising expectations had accelerated and that these expectations had not been realised. I think the hon. Gentleman was right. I think there may be a strong clue here to the cause of what I describe as cost-push inflation. Cost-push can arise from either side of the managerial fence. I do not take issue with the polemics of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in this connection as the debate is drawing to its close.
I was very much impressed by the points made by the hon. Member for Walton and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) who pointed out—I do not think he meant to support the Chancellor—that the key behind the Bill was that, so long as the demand pull could be accelerated—that is, that growth could continue in the eco-

nomy—a halt, however brief, in the cost-push would give not only this House but others outside time to consider their positions relative to our social future. That is why I regard the Bill as useful.
I do not have any particular skeletons in the cupboard regarding past speeches on prices policies, not even in the Northampton Chronicle and Echo, but I do not like such policies. I have never liked them. I do not particularly favour the idea of a long-term prices policy. Therefore, I shall look closely at what might be called stage 2.
This is not a situation in which we should squeeze the money supply with further bankruptcies, further rises in unemployment and further failure to allow the realisation of those proper expectations of everyone in this country. However, it is a situation in which a short, sharp, comprehensive freeze could be of great value not only for inflicting this particularly sharp lesson but to give us time for consideration of these matters in this House. For these reasons, I support the Bill.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: In his concluding remarks the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) said that it was perfectly respectable for politicians to change their minds. I accept that. I doubt whether there is a politician either inside or outside this House who at some time in his political career has not changed his mind. However, we are concerned with a Government who have not merely changed their minds, but have turned back virtually every policy statement and utterance that the Prime Minister has made during the past six years.
The Bill represents one of the biggest turnabouts or voltes-face in political history. It will do untold damage not only to the Government and the Tory Party, which I view with equanimity, but to politics in general. People outside this House are becoming extremely cynical about politics, Parliament and the Government.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carter: No. No disrespect is intended to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I want to finish in four or five minutes.

Mr. Rees: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Sir Robert Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws did irreparable damage to British politics?

Mr. Carter: I said that all politicians in the past have been guilty, sometimes honourably, of changing their minds. That was a case in point. However, many of us now live in the twentieth, not the nineteenth, century.
The Government have brought in this Bill against a background of trying to obtain voluntary agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made some remarks on that subject. We have heard that the Government look forward to voluntary agreement in future. I must say that they have started in an extraordinary way by reaching Third Reading without one comma of the Bill as originally drafted being altered.
I have seen nothing in the Government's activities to convince me that they are the sole repository of all the wisdom knocking about in this country at present. I doubt whether there is anything in the Bill that verges on either truth or wisdom. The Bill remains as it was drafted. It is unfair in most places, it is unclear in others, and it is seen increasingly as unwanted.
The Government have made great play of getting public support. We have been told that 75 per cent. of the people say they are in favour of a freeze. I have no doubt that if people were asked whether they were in favour of free bread they would similarly come up with a figure of 75 per cent.
Another poll has been carried out to ascertain how many people thought that a prices policy would work. About 58 per cent. said that they did not think it would work. From what I have read and heard over the weekend in my constituency, very few people, apart from hard-line Tory supporters, believe that prices will be controlled.
The Opposition have a mixed opinion about a prices and incomes policy. I support the idea—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—but only within the context of much wider controls right across the board. We do not believe in the kind of discriminatory measure that is embodied in the Bill.
Let us consider two areas where there is distinct discrimination. I have already referred to prices. But what about the division that the Government have created in the different ways they approach the problem of controlling wages? We find that the wages of piece workers are to be pegged to the last penny as at 6th November. However, 26 per cent. of salary earners in the public sector will receive their increments in the months of the freeze. Some people on incremental pay scales will get a bonus at Christmas. If the Government intended to be fair they should have attempted to treat all salary and wage earners in the same way. That is not the case. We could add to that figure about 10 per cent. in private industry who are similarly in receipt of incremental salary increases.
I do not believe that the Bill will work. It is unfair in many respects and it is highly discriminatory. I do not believe that while the Government adopt their present posture there is any chance of them achieving a voluntary agreement in any negotiations which may take place. I do not believe that the TUC has the power to act in the way that would be necessary to get a voluntary agreement. The Government are being dishonest by pretending that a three-month freeze could somehow blow away the ghastly mess of inflation. We all know that we shall see factors in the economy next year which will impel even higher levels of inflation.
If the Government hold out any hope for a voluntary agreement they must be honest with the country and not try to pretend that inflation will diminish in the coming months. VAT will be introduced and there will be other factors implicit in our entry into the Common Market, including higher food prices. Even at this eleventh hour the Prime Minister should come clean and tell people precisely what is the economic state of affairs. On Second Reading I referred in what may have seemed a frivolous way to our economic troubles over the last 15 years. I believe, and I believe that the country is coming increasingly to think, that we must be honest with ourselves. We cannot cure all our troubles with one measure like a prices and incomes Bill, even though it is euphemistically named a counter-inflation Bill. One measure by itself is incapable of achieving that aim. We need


many measures right across the board, and until the Government speak to the country and the TUC in those terms a voluntary policy is inconceivable and unobtainable.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The official Opposition have adopted a posture which seems to say rather petulantly that they would support the principle of the Bill if only they had been allowed to bring it in themselves. That is the same attitude as they showed on the European Communities Bill, that they were not actually against entry but that they would have negotiated very much better terms. Now they are claiming that they could have reached agreement with the TUC and that they could have introduced a freeze which would have been satisfactory in a way that this freeze is not. I sometimes think that they would do it with the skill that Lord Kearton and Lord George-Brown have shown in the matter of industrial relations at Skelmersdale.
The Opposition are asking for lower rents, lower VAT, higher expenditure on pensions and all sorts of other benefits. They believe that if those elements had been gathered into the package it would work. But all those elements increase the Government's deficit. They are inflationary petrol poured upon the fires of the very problem we are trying to deal with, and the effect of adopting that course, however socially or politically desirable, would be to increase, not diminish, inflation. The Government's expenditure causes inflation and it cannot be cured by committees, conferences at Downing Street or matters of that sort.
There is one point which must be clarified concerning steel prices after 1st January. We have rendered the British Steel Corporation and the private sector of the steel industry liable to heavy penalties under the Bill if they increase their prices and liable to be taken before the Court of the Hague under the terms of the European Communities Act if they do not.
It would be possible for the Government to wangle it for the British Steel Corporation. They can talk to the Commission and get it to lay off. That sort of thing is unpleasant but it works in the

public sector. But we cannot put the independent producers in the position where two laws are passed which are totally at variance with each other and under which they are liable to be fined if they obey either, both or neither. Before we can have any confidence in the Bill the Government must tell us whether the BSC and the independent producers will be permitted to increase their prices on 1st January or not. The matter should be cleared up, because that is what the House of Commons is for and we must have a clear answer before we leave the Bill.
Nothing would be worse than that we should have a permanent régime of prices and incomes control with snoopers, boards, reports and everyone being accountable to the Government for every change of price or wage. I understand that many members of the Government and civil servants have been flying across the Atlantic to inspect the American system. It is a pity that more of them have not been to Brussels to inspect what the EEC is advising the Finance Ministers of the Nine to do. The American prices and incomes policy was designed only as a short-term measure to lead to a more stable situation in which the market forces could again prevail.
Short-term measures, whether this Bill, or a longer-term statutory policy are unpleasant because they distort the price mechanism. They offend against the market system, and they bring people close to prison or fines for economic offences. They come close to offending against our European obligations, and, perhaps worst of all, they engender hatred and bitterness where none should exist. Perhaps even worse, in all history they have seldom, if ever, worked for more than a short period.
I believe, therefore, that many of my hon. Friends, although they recognise the need for the Bill and, perhaps, for the follow-up Bill, will not wish to initiate a permanent régime to control prices and incomes. Rather, they hope that the Government will use the time bought by the Bill and the opportunity presented by further talks and further legislation, if there is to be such, to get back to a proper backing for an exhortatory policy by economic policies which are likely to work in the same direction as the propaganda they are putting forward.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: In this last miserable week, when we have been chained under the guillotine, we have watched the Government, on issue after issue, maintain a stony refusal to make any concession even to powerful arguments urged from their own side in the provisions of the Bill. We have also learned almost nothing about precisely how the Government propose to operate the machinery under the Bill.
Neither of these facts was very surprising, at least to me. But I think that many of us at least hoped that we might learn something, in four days' discussion, of why the Government are now standing on their heads, why they are now doing something which they told us again and again, as late as mid-summer this year, could not work, would make all the problems worse and would cause grave injustice, and why they are now saying that it is unpatriotic for any of us not to join them in saying that black is white and wrong is right.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Healey: No; if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have to get on.
We have had no indication whatever from Ministers of the reason why they have changed their views. There is nothing wrong in a Government changing their views on an issue, but the country and their own supporters have a right to know what was wrong in their earlier argument and what is different in the new situation.

Mr. Heffer: If my right hon. Friend would let me intervene, I will give him the answer.

Mr. Healey: I am going to give the answer, my hon. Friend will be relieved to know.

Mr. Heffer: It is not the answer that I would give.

Mr. Healey: We got the answer over the weekend from the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Department of Employment. They made it quite clear, in figures of price increases immediately preceding the Bill which were released over the weekend, that this is a panic measure undertaken because there were all the signs of a runaway inflation in the months im-

mediately preceding the Prime Minister's announcement on 6th November, and that the Government have done this simply because they could not think of anything else to do in this situation.
We learned on Friday that wholesale prices rose at an annual rate of 9 per cent. in the last quarter. We learned on Saturday that retail prices in the month immediately preceding the freeze rose by 1·4 per cent., which is an annual rate of nearly 17 per cent., the highest rate since April, 1971. We have also learned recently that in the same period dividends went up by 13 per cent. compared with last year.
The Chancellor knew very well, and the Prime Minister knew, that this is what was happening to the economy. They knew that the attempt to contain inflation by agreement with the CBI had broken down. They knew that these facts would come to light this weekend, and they knew that the effect of these facts coming to light would be disastrous for sterling. Because of this, they did something that they had always believed it was wrong to do.
We have seen the estimate from OECD in recent weeks that we are running into a £320 million deficit on our balance of payments next year.

Mr. Heffer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Healey: I think that the House and the country also have a right to know what produced this runaway inflation in the months immediately preceding the freeze.

Mr. Carter: This Government.

Mr. Healey: It was not wages. Nearly half the increase last month was the increase in council rents imposed by the Government themselves, and the increase of 0·6 per cent. in the cost of living last month, due to council rents, was for many individuals an increase of 3 per cent. in their personal cost of living. I am talking of those individuals whose rents rose by £1 on 1st October this year. That was a deliberate decision of the Government, taken for party reasons, and no one could have made this clearer than the Chancellor himself today.
The Chancellor talked about the increased cost of food because of things that happened in other parts of the world, but he knows as well as I do that the


real impact of the international food situation has yet to be felt. We shall see food prices rocket in the next 12 months. We have so far felt very little of the effect of the Soviet bad grain harvest. Indeed, it was not clear until five or six weeks ago precisely how bad that harvest was.
The rest of the increases of the last three months were made by firms which were racing to put up their prices before the statutory freeze, which Ministers had been threatening with increasing vigour since midsummer. Indeed, the irony is that this freeze has been introduced by the Government to cope with a situation produced partly by their own policy, which, for party reasons, they refused to change, and partly by their fatuous behaviour in predicting the onset of a statutory policy and inviting firms to preempt it—as they did in masses, particularly in August, September and October.
But the question that the Government have totally failed to answer is: how will this freeze help? If grain prices go up all over the world, it will not help to freeze farm workers' wages in Britain. If council house rents are to rise again next April—as the Chancellor made it crystal clear in his strident intervention today they would—it will not help to refuse even to allow shop assistants and nursing auxiliaries to negotiate increases in the miserable wages with which they have to be content at the moment.
The Chancellor quoted President Nixon's experience, but he knows as well as I do that the Nixon freeze was introduced under pressure from the trade unions of the United States and that when the freeze ended and Nixon introduced his statutory policy the trade unions at least acquiesced in it. He knows as well as I do that President Nixon introduced his price freeze at a moment when prices in the United States were beginning to fall.
But this Government are introducing the price freeze when, as the right hon. Gentleman said today, the prices of the main commodities determining the cost of living are certain to rise, and to rise dramatically. Of course, the freeze will do nothing about these central elements in the cost of living, because it is only a freeze on wages. There is no effective freeze in the long term on dividends at

all, because people who draw dividends can make up later what they lose now.
The Government are not even attempting to touch two-thirds of food prices. They are doing nothing about housing and land. On council rents the Government have promised us today—in spite of the weasel words used by the Chief Secretary in the debate late on Tuesday night, which I fear none of us has been able to read because of the non-appearance of HANSARD for that evening—that they intend to introduce a new increase in council rents next April, even if the freeze were to continue until the end of that month.
We have had no answer to the repeated questions from both sides of the House as to what the Government will do about steel prices after 1st January. I hope that we get an answer from the Chief Secretary today, because steel prices will have a critical influence on prices through a very large section of manufacturing industry.
The Government do not claim that the freeze will work. How can they, since they have excluded so many prices from it? They admit that there are rough edges. The only possible excuse for the freeze, and the only chance of avoiding a terrifying price and wage explosion at the end of it, is to reduce the period of the freeze to the absolute minimum and to start talks immediately with the TUC and the CBI again on a long-term policy.
Another thing that we have learned during the last week is that the reason why the talks broke down was that the Government refused to negotiate with the TUC on issues which the TUC has stated from the word "go", at Chequers, it was absolutely essential to negotiate on; namely, food prices, council rents, pensions, VAT and the Industrial Relations Bill.
There was one moment last week when, reading the Bill, some of us thought that the Government might be prepared to relax the partisan and party position that they have taken on these issues. We noted that under the schedule Ministers had the right to declare that this Bill would take precedence over any previous legislation—the European Communities Act, the Housing Finance Act or whatever. But the Chancellor today, as so often in the last few years, has deliberately thrown


away any chance of re-opening negotiations with the TUC by that petulant and strident shriek of his, when he said that he was damned if he would do anything about the Housing Finance Act because it was the policy of his Government.
We shall vote against the Bill because, for the reasons that I have given, so long as the Government maintain the policies which the Chancellor has stood for over the last two years and which he reiterated today there is no chance whatever of following up the freeze with a long-term policy which can deal with this inflation. I therefore appeal to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and to hon. Members opposite who made many of the same points as I have made, to vote against the Third Reading.

5.50 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): We have heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and his hon. Friends many of the familiar accusations they have made against the Bill during its passage through the House—the accusation, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, that the Government had created inflation. It is a fairly odd way of creating it to have succeeded in virtually halving the rate of growth of prices between July, 1971, and July, 1972. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East looks puzzled, but I remind him that in July, 1971, compared with 12 months earlier prices were nearly 11 per cent. higher, and by July, 1972, they were under 6 per cent. higher. That is a fairly odd way of creating inflation.
The right hon. Member for East Ham North allowed himself to be misled once again by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East about the effects of the unification of tax next April. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side persist in the error—I have never seen the right hon. Member for Leeds, East correcting himself on this yet—of saying that the whole of the benefit will accrue to people with incomes of over £5,000 a year. That is untrue. Two-thirds of the benefit accrues to people with incomes below that figure, and 30 per cent. of the benefit goes to the 11 per cent. of taxpayers who are retired. So let us hear no more of that.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North said that pensions were frozen

except for the miserable £10 for retirement pensioners. But right hon. Members on the Opposition side introduced two or three freezes. We did not have any bonuses for pensioners under their freezes. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North is quite wrong. A very large number of public service pensioners—civil servants, armed forces, teachers, police, local government, health service and overseas pensioners—will get increases of about 9·9 per cent. from 1st December. That is at a cost of £54 million for a whole year. In addition, nationalised industry pensioners will get increases from the same date under arrangements analogous to them.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper makes it abundantly clear that the standstill does not apply to improvements in occupational pensions. Thus so far from the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman would have it, being a freeze on pensioners, the absolute reverse is the truth. Most pensioners will get increases during the standstill under arrangements being made by the Government.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made what one might call a rather astonishing speech. It is a pity that we do not hear him more on this subject. He made it clear during our debates that he disliked his right hon. Friend's amendments almost as much as the Bill. He abused his right hon. Friends for having regretted that the talks with the TUC and the CBI had failed. He committed himself to the astonishing proposition that the workers, and not the Government, are the custodians of the national fortunes. All I can say to that is that precious few people outside the House would agree with that recipe.

Mr. Skinner: Except the workers.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) complained that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was introducing a new doctrine when he indicated this afternoon that employers were to be asked to notify pay claims to the Department of Employment. My hon. Friend asked whether this was a new legal requirement. It is not. Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend of


the words used by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He said:
Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment would like employers to keep his Department informed of major claims received and any other developments.
In the circumstances of this short-term standstill, that seems to be a very reasonable request. Of course compliance is wholly voluntary, but we entertain the hope that employers will feel it right to let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have details of such claims.

Mr. Harry Ewing: What about steel?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) referred to the money supply. Figures published this morning bring the latest totals up to November. For the three months to July, the money supply increased on the M3 basis by 8 per cent., in the three months to October by 5 per cent. and in the three months to November by 4¼ per cent. So we are maintaining our progress in keeping down the rate of growth.
Then there was the question of food prices, and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked for specific figures to justify the statement about food prices given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor this afternoon. From the fourth quarter of 1971 to the end of September, 1972, the price for grain—Australian wheat—rose by 56 per cent., for New Zealand lamb by 41 per cent., for New Zealand dairy cheese by 14 per cent. and for wool by 108 per cent. with a further 2 per cent. increase in the first week of October. I should have thought that those figures amply justified my right hon. Friend's statement that many of the price increases over the last month have been due to matters wholly outside the control of the Government.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about firms that have jumped the gun. I am not sure whether I am quoting him exactly. But the figures do not lead to the conclusion that there has been any jumping of the gun on price increases. The index to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which was pub-

lished on Saturday, shows very little evidence of any undue price increases due to the attempt to get an agreement. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should not have attempted to get agreement or, alternatively, that we should have frozen prices before we got an agreement. It seems that he cannot expect to have it both ways.

Mr. Ewing: What about steel?

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to steel now. A number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Opposition side have raised this point. I remind them of what I said when speaking from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday when the same questions were raised. I said that it remained our objective in the longer term to get the British Steel Corporation on to a sound financial footing. In the context of this interim Bill—I stress again that this is a temporary standstill—as the White Paper makes clear, the standstill will apply to steel prices as to others.
Our Common Market partners share our concern to combat inflation, and this was made very clear at the summit meeting in Paris and at the meeting of Finance Ministers in Luxembourg. We are in touch with the European Commission on the question of steel pricing. Discussions will certainly continue and there are good indications that they will prove constructive and that we shall meet with understanding. Although there are some serious problems I do not believe that they should be exaggerated. When these discussions are completed, we shall inform the House of their outcome, but for the moment I cannot say more.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: When will that be?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman talked about dividends. Our dividend freeze is in almost all respects the same as that of the Labour Party in 1968 and more stringent in some respects. There is no evidence that when a freeze of this sort comes to an end it is followed by an unprecedented rise in dividends—that was the case made by the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, after the 1968–69 freeze the amount of dividends declared in 1970 actually fell.
The Bill is a necessary short-term measure in the Government's efforts to combat inflation. It will allow time for the working out of arrangements to deal with inflation in the longer term and to secure the priorities agreed during the Chequers and Downing Street talks. As such, I hope that the House will give it

a fair wind and a Third Reading this evening.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 263.

Division No. 15.
AYES
[5.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fell, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Astor, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kinsey, J. R.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kirk, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Timothy


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foster, Sir John
Knox, David


Batsford, Brian
Fowler, Norman
Lambton, Lord


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fox, Marcus
Lamont, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lane, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n'C'field)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Loveridge, John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gorst, John
Luce, R. N.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrinde, R. A.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Hamish
McLaren, Martin


Bray, Ronald
Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
Mecmillan, Rt. Hn Maurice (Farnham)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Maddan, Martin


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Madel, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman



Havers, Sir Michael



Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Molyneaux, James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Heseltine, Michael
Money, Ernie


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper


Cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles


Cordle, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Mudd, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Costain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. Jack
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. C.


Dean, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
James, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Dixon, Piers
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Jessell, Toby
Pardoe, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil


Dykes, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Percival, Ian


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn




Pink, R. Bonner
Slnclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Soref, Harold
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pym, Rt. Hn Francis
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Redmond, Robert
Steel, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Sewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Sokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Rost, Peter
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Younger, Hn. George


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony



Simeons, Charles
Trew, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hilton, W. S.


Allen, Scholefield
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Horam, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Ashton, Joe
Delargy, Hugh
Huckfleld, Leslie


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnes, Michael
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hunter, Adam


Baxter, William
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Beaney, Alan
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, ames (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
John, Brynmor


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Ewing, Harry
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Judd, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kaufman, Gerald


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Kerr, Russell


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Foot, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Latham, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Leonard, Dick


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lipton, Marcus


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Cronin, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil



Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McElhone, Frank


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Mackenzie, Gregor







Mackie, John
Paget, R. T.
Stallard, A. W.


Mackintosh, John p.
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marks, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G.
Swain, Thomas


Marquand, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Marsden, F.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


Mayhew, Christopher
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


Meacher, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Urwin, T. W.


Mendelson, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Milne, Edward
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wallace, George


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David


Molloy, William
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Weitzman, David


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roper, John
White, Jamas (Glasgow, Pollok)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Murray, Ronald King
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ogden, Eric
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Oram, Bert
Sillars, Jamas



Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tom Pendry and


Oswald, Thomas
Small, William
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Spearing, Nigel



Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

PENSIONERS AND FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT PAYMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure for me to bring before the House a Bill that is at once short, comprehensible and, I believe, beneficial.
The main purpose of this Bill is to enable a special payment of £10 to be made to all those who qualify—that is, to persons who have attained pensionable age and to whom specified pensions or benefits are payable for the week beginning 4th December, 1972. An additional payment of £10 will be made to a number of those pensioners in respect of their spouses who are also over minimum pension age.
I am sure the House will welcome the quick payment proposed. The House

will wish me, in the light of this quick payment, to pay a tribute to the Post Office staff and to sub-postmasters who have indicated their willingness to take on this job at that time in the interests of the pensioners so as to enable them to receive payment at the earliest opportunity, notwithstanding that the Post Office will then already be preparing for the Christmas rush. I should like to emphasise that extraordinary efforts are needed to achieve this date and that these efforts are being willingly undertaken both in the offices in the field and by the staff in my Department.
I remind the House that the payments in the week starting 4th December depend upon the Bill completing all its stages in both Houses before the end of next week.
It was common ground during the tripartite discussions which the Government held with the CBI and the TUC that no one suffers more from inflation than the pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, however, went further than this common ground and offered that in the event of an agreement on wages and prices right across the board which successfully countered inflation, the Government would ensure that following the next pension


review in the spring, the autumn increase in the pension would enable pensioners to share in the increased prosperity in the country. As an earnest of their good intentions, the Government offered to make a special once-for-all payment to those over the national insurance retirement age in receipt of retirement or supplementary pensions and certain other benefits.
Although, in the event, it was not possible to reach agreement in the tripartite talks, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House when announcing the Government's anti-inflation measures on 6th November that they still proposed to carry through the measures affecting those in low-paid employment and the pensioners which had been put forward in the package.
Clauses 1 and 2 implement that promise so far as concerns pensioners. Clause 4 provides that the special payments will come wholly from the Exchequer and will not, therefore, be a burden on the contributors. The cost, with some 8 million recipients. will be about £80 million.
These payments provided in the Bill for those over retirement age are tax-free. Those in hospitals and in Part III accommodation who receive one of the qualifying benefits will receive the special payment in full. The payments are disregarded for supplementary benefit. The Bill applies to Northern Ireland as an exceptional once-off measure, which does not breach the normal constitutional arrangements on social security.
I turn now in more detail to those who will benefit—

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the question of the payments, will he give an assurance that no other payment will be affected by the £10?

Sir K. Joseph: It is tax-free and is disregarded for supplementary benefit; so the short answer is "Yes".

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Mr. Brian O'Malley (Rotherham) rose—

Sir K. Joseph: If hon. Members are going to raise Committee points now, may I point out that I have given a general assurance that this is disregarded

for supplementary benefit and is tax-free. If hon. Members want to pursue any other relatively minor questions they will find that they can cross-examine us under Clause 1(6) in detail.
I should like to get on to deal with those who will benefit—

Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Referring to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), of course we understand that, in the technical sense of the disregard, this £10 is to be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes. My hon. Friend was asking for an assurance that where there are discretionary allowances within the powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, applicants will be considered for those discretionary allowances—for example, heating allowances—as though the £10 has never been paid at all.

Sir K. Joseph: If that is the question, the answer is still "Yes". The £10 will not be taken into account as income for supplementary benefit purposes.
I turn to those who will benefit, listed under Clause 1. The £10 payment will go to persons over pensionable age for National Insurance purposes—that is, 65 years of age for a man and 60 for a woman—to whom specified benefits are payable in the week beginning 4th December, 1972. The Bill specifies the following pensions or benefits: retirement pension, including old persons' pension; invalidity pension; widow's benefit; attendance allowance; unemployability supplement or allowance; war widow's pension; industrial injuries widow's or widower's pension; and supplementary pension. I emphasise that to qualify an individual must have reached the minimum retirement age and be entitled in the relevant week to one of those benefits. This entitlement extends to about 8 million persons, of whom just over 7½ million are retirement pensioners.
Most married retirement pensioners have separate pension books, and a payment of £10 will be made on each book. Where, however, a husband has an increase of his retirement pension for a wife who is over 60 or where an old person, without a title to retirement


pension, is receiving supplementary pension which includes the requirements of a wife who is over 60, a payment of £20 will be made. I emphasise that no single individual will get in respect of himself or herself as such more than one payment of £10.
There will be general publicity about methods of payment both by the national Press and by posters in post offices. A special leaflet setting out the categories will he available in post offices. In effect, retirement pensioners will get their special payments when they cash their pension orders which fall due the week beginning 4th December. Others will have their special payments sent to them by post, either by one of the Department's local offices or by one of the central offices at Newcastle and Blackpool. Only those persons who have elected to receive their pensions monthly or quarterly—that is about 400,000 persons—will have to wait until after Christmas for payment. They should receive their payment during January, 1973.
There are also provisions in the Bill which will help low-paid people in the working age group. As I informed the House on 6th November, the operation of the family income supplement scheme was in any case being reviewed to see in what way it could be made more effective. I undertook that it would be so reviewed after about a year in operation. The most important outcome of the review is the proposal which is now embodied in Clause 3, which extends the period for which an award of family income supplement runs from six months to 12 months. That means that for 12 months from the date of an award the amount payable will not be affected by any change in the circumstances of the person concerned. That change will especially benefit those people affected by what is called the poverty trap. Although the numbers concerned are much smaller than generally thought, I am sure that the House will welcome that change.
It is not the case that the extension of awards to 12 months will merely postpone the poverty trap. Assuming that family income supplement levels move upwards each year at least in line with prices, and if a man's earnings increase by a similar amount over the year, he will in future find when he

renews his claim that he will get about the same award as he did previously. Throughout the 12 months of the award the family income supplement will continue to serve as a passport to certain other means-tested benefits—for example, free welfare foods and free school meals.
The change from six-month awards will take place from 3rd April, 1973. Additionally, beneficiaries who have a 26-week award at that date will have their award converted to 52 weeks. The effect of the change is that all awards of family income supplement which began on or after 10th October, 1972, will last for 12 months.
As a result of the change the number of people in receipt of family income supplement after April, 1973, will be about 10,000 higher than would otherwise have been the case, at a cost in a full year of £1 million. Incidentally, there will be a small saving of staff in the Department.
One other matter connected with family income supplement, although it does not arise from the Bill, should be mentioned. The family income supplement prescribed amounts were uprated in April of this year. The Government now intend that, subject to the approval of Parliament, they should be increased again with effect from 3rd April, 1973. That is the same date as applies for the change to 12-month awards. This is a decision of principle, and the new amounts which will be prescribed will be announced later.

Mr. Michael Meacher: With regard to the poverty wage trap, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Clause 3 will not include what are traditionally called the FIS passport benefits, nor free school meals, but will apply only to family income supplement?

Sir K. Joseph: I have said that the passport which goes with FIS will run from 3rd April next year for 12 months instead of six. So I will not confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. The passport will run for the 12 months.

Mr. Meacher: And free school meals?

Sir K. Joseph: All the items covered by the passport—that is, free welfare foods and free school meals—will run for 12 months instead of six months. That is to say, those corollaries going with


FIS will be extended to 12 months instead of six.
I believe that the House will agree that this is a beneficial Bill, and I commend it to the House for Second Reading with confidence and pleasure.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The Opposition welcome the payment of £10 to pensioners and their wives proposed in the Bill. The payments, particularly as they are being made just before Christmas, will help pensioners.
We see the Bill as an open acceptance by the Government that they have allowed inflation to get badly out of control. On 30th November, 1971, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Government to make such payments in face of the emergency created by soaring prices. But our requests then were ignored both by the Secretary of State for Social Services and by the Under-Secretary of State.
Of course we were not alone 12 months ago in making requests for such payments. For example, Patrick Hutber in the Sunday Telegraph of the 28th November, 1971, asked:
How about £10 a head for the pensioner …?
Nothing happened. The message was ignored, even though there was roaring inflation and pensioners were obviously suffering real hardship. The Government were not prepared to act. It has taken a year for them to change their minds, and they are now under pressure. It is almost as if they are telling the country "We recognise that we have many vices, but consistency is not one of them".
We know that the change of mind within the Cabinet, and the proposals in the Bill, resulted from the pressure of the TUC during the tripartite negotiations. Nevertheless, we welcome the proposals.
Some of my hon. Friends have already commented on the proposals by way of notice of Motion. I refer to Early Day Motion No. 52 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and other hon. Friends which states:
That this House notes with contempt the cynical attitude of the Government towards the electorate and the pensioners of Sutton, Cheam and Uxbridge in hastily fixing the date

of these by-elections and changing the date of the £10, bonus payment so that they coincide "—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: What about Lincoln?

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The Motion continues:
notes the inflationary price of a vote since the days of the rotten borough; and is confident that this form of attempted corruption will be decisively rejected.
We are talking about Sutton, Cheam and Uxbridge and not Lincoln. We can come to that a little later if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants.
There is no need for me to take up the cudgels on behalf of my hon. Friends, who are quite capable of handling their Motion more than competently. But can the Government confirm that they are still asking the Conservative candidates in the by-elections to mention on the loudspeaker on polling day that when the pensioners turn out to vote they will pick up their two £5 notes at the same time? Have the Government considered the possibility of the payments being made in the polling booths in Sutton, Cheam and Uxbridge at the same time as polling is taking place? There is no need for me to comment further on that, because my hon. Friends who tabled the Motion will express their own views on it if they catch the eye of the Chair.
The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is looking worried, so of course I give way to him.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he prefer the payment to be deferred, in view of the by-elections, until the New Year?

Sir K. Joseph: Answer.

Mr. O'Malley: Of course I shall answer. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I always answer all questions openly, frankly and immediately. I have already said that the payments will be very welcome to pensioners at this time of the year, as the Government have allowed inflation and prices to get out of control. It is the pensioners who have suffered most as a result of Government policies, while the Government have been effecting a massive redistribution of wealth in


favour of the better-off. I hope that the hon. Member for Kensington, South will feel that I have directly answered his question.
Although every hon. Member welcomes the proposed payments to pensioners, and therefore wants to facilitate the passage of the Bill so that it receives Royal Assent as quickly as is reasonably possible, the payments should be seen for what they are, a stopgap emergency measure and nothing more. They are no substitute for pensions big enough for pensioners to live decently on in 1972.
The tragedy is that the new Tory pensions proposals offer no better future for millions of elderly pensioners for a long time ahead. The very existence of such proposals amounts to an overt recognition by the Government that their social security arrangements covering the elderly have broken down and that at Christmastime, 1972, there is a crisis. What is needed is an immediate substantial increase for pensioners. To that end there will be a massive lobby of the House on Wednesday by thousands of pensioners and their supporters from all over the country. They realise how critical and deplorable the condition of the retirement pensioner is.

Sir K. Joseph: Before the hon. Gentleman works himself up too much, perhaps he will remember that an additional £500 million a year was put into the hands of beneficiaries, starting in October, only six weeks ago.

Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman felt that I was working myself up. I thought I was being very friendly towards him and his Government. The best way to answer him is to quote from an article by Ken Gofton headed "Matching inflation" in the Financial Times of 22nd March this year, which refers directly to the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. I expected he would say something like that. Mr. Gofton wrote:
Mr. Barber said that the increases in pensions and benefits being made now amounted to about 12½ per cent.…
Unfortunately, it will not have escaped notice that not only are pensions going up by record amounts. So is the cost of living. The 12½ per cent. increase in pensions promised for the autumn matches exactly the increase in retail food prices last year.

The Government claim that they have given big increases to pensioners, but when we see the movement in the retail price index and the food price index we realise just how little was done for the pensioners and how desperate is their situation this winter.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman touched on the point that I will ask him to acknowledge, that the retail price index has risen over the year in question by significantly less than the increase in pensions. I have never over-stated the position, but I hope he will acknowledge that a significant increase in the buying power of the pension has been available to pensioners since October despite the rise in prices, which has been less than the rise in pensions.

Mr. O'Malley: The right hon. Gentleman must not try that with me, because I have been dealing with pensions for too long. It is not only the Index of Retail Prices that is significant in assessing the comparative position of the pensioners. We must also consider the food price index and give it a fair degree of weighting for pensioners, because the distribution of their income and the demands on their limited income are effectively different from those of people with higher incomes who are still at work.
It is not without significance when the Government try to blame the trade union movement for everything—everything that has gone wrong is no longer the Government's responsibility but is that of someone else—that the trade union movement is this week in the forefront of the campaign for proper retirement pensions. The trade union movement as a whole has said that the workers are prepared to pay for decent pensions for their ex-members to live on.
The type of emergency measure that we are considering is of course welcome, but it is a stopgap. What we need in addition to deal with the problem, even in the short term, is a massive increase in pensions, and very quickly. The Government may say that the need is not so urgent now because they have frozen prices. They allowed things to get out of control, but now they say "We know that we have failed the country. We know that the famous promises that prices would be reduced at a stroke have all been broken. But we recognise the error


of our ways and we shall revert to a statutory type of incomes policy, which we always said was much worse than the disease. We shall try that, and tell the pensioners with pride 'We are running a system in which we have said we do not believe, but the result will be helpful to you. It will freeze prices.'"
But already, before the so-called freeze, there had been a rapid increase in food prices and in the broader index of retail prices. In spite of any price freeze, there will be continuing price rises during the rest of the winter. The Financial Times aptly observed on its front page on 18th November that a number of the price increases—massive increases at that—had not yet been reflected in the official Index of Retail Prices issued on 17th November.
The Financial Times continued:
This shows that between September 19 and October 17 prices rose at a faster rate that in any month since April 1971, bringing the annual rate of increase in the last six months to 8·7 per cent... these indices will not magically stabilise in the immediate future. The October retail index was compiled before the freeze was introduced and the November statistics will reflect the burst of anticipatory price increases which were announced at the beginning of the month.
Therefore, the index by no means reflects everything. It will rise still further even in the period of freeze because of the increases that had already taken place, seasonal fluctuations and the de facto devaluation resulting from the Government's financial policies. There will be further substantial price increases next year, from which the pensioners will suffer, as a result of the introduction of the value added tax and our entry into the EEC.
It is small wonder the Opposition must say that the £10 is welcome but that the Bill is a stopgap measure. It is not enough. The Government should do far more by giving a major increase in the weekly pension now.
I turn now to some very important exclusions in the Bill. The Secretary of State has explained that the only recipients of the £10 will be those who satisfy a number of conditions. One of the conditions is that every man or woman who draws this £10 bonus has to be over the retirement age, which is 65 in the case of men and 60 in the case

of women. If these benefits are introduced because of a crisis in our affairs, because it is recognised that the worse-off people, the pensioners, suffer particularly from this crisis in our economic and financial affairs, do not the same considerations apply, for example, to the long-term sick who are under the ages of 65 and 60? If we are talking about pensioners, why not include the invalidity pensioners?
The Money Resolution does not refer to retirement pensioners. If one looks at the technical use of the word "pensioners" in the national insurance legislation of 1972 and before that, there are a number of pensions in the technical sense apart from retirement pensions. We are therefore bound to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has not included such categories in the Bill and whether he will be prepared to consider the possibility of such inclusion during the Bill's later stages.
We are particularly concerned about the plight and position of invalidity pensioners; of widows; of those receiving the attendance allowance; of those who are disabled—whether they be war pensioners or people suffering from industrial injury; of those blind people who are recipients of supplementary benefit; and, of course, of the long-term unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government must reconsider this position before we reach the Committee stage.
Clause 3 deals with the modification of the family income supplement. Even the Government now use the phrase "the poverty trap". I can recall that when not so very long ago that terms was used we on this side were told by Conservatives that the poverty trap was a myth and did not apply to many people at all. Now the Secretary of State himself has been bound to admit, as the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers admitted during the tripartite talks, that as a result of the use of means testing and selectivity by the present Administration during the last two years there has been created very high marginal rates of tax and a very serious poverty trap.
The Clause seeks to provide a temporary way out of that trap but at the same time it will provide another increase in the number of working people who are receiving means-tested benefits. The right hon. Gentleman explained that this


would be helpful in dealing with the poverty trap; but that poverty trap still exists and will continue to exist in a very serious form even if the Clause is improved. In particular, when one looks forward to the next 12 or 18 months and the development of the Government's prices and incomes policy as it seems likely or possible to develop, it will be seen that the Government will have to think far further than this temporary expedient which they have introduced, once again, as a result of the tripartite talks.
While we welcome its major provisions, we believe that the Bill is presented by a Government in deep trouble, a Government whose whole strategy has collapsed and collapsed particularly in the realm of prices policy. The Bill in itself represents a patched-up policy and is an open recognition that the Government's social security policies have failed. In spite of this little Bill, it is clear that the Government have no policies, even in the medium or long term, to deal with the problem of poverty. We on this side have, and we shall put those policies into operation when we return to power.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: In his concluding passages the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) talked about his party continuing on a policy for poverty which it hoped to have a chance to bring into operation. It is some time since I spoke in one of these debates, but I remember that on the last occasion when the hon. Gentleman was speaking from these benches his party had had six years in which to produce an effective policy for poverty but had failed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done more to tackle these problems and has laid before the House more plans for the future than did the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends in their six years of office.
It is therefore a little hard for the hon. Member to talk about these problems being created by the Conservative Government. It is hard also when he talks as though inflation was created by my right hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should remember what they were saying about that two and a half years ago when inflation was roaring ahead. The fact is that under the

previous Government pensioners suffered more than anyone else from the rate of inflation. Exactly the same is true when inflation exists under the present Government—

Mr. Stallard: Even worse.

Mr. Worsley: It is not worse. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not true to say that it is.

Mr. O'Malley: In November, 1970, speaking of the rate of inflation and the movement in the index, I said:
Between the beginning and the end of 1966 the percentage increase in the index was 2·4. In 1967 it was 4·1 per cent.; in 1968 3 per cent.; in 1969 4·1 per cent.; and then up to December, 1970, it was 6·8 per cent. In early 1971 the increase was 9·1 per cent., and by October, 1971, the increase already this year is 7·5 per cent.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 363.]
The situation has got worse since then. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile those figures with what he now says?

Mr. Worsley: The fact is that there has been inflation under both Governments—

Mr. Stallard: Can the hon. Member produce figures to prove his statement that the position has not got worse?

Mr. Worsley: There was massive inflation in the last years of the Labour Government which they did singularly little to tackle. They never had a Bill such as this. At the end of six years of office they had not succeeded in bringing into operation the pensions scheme on which they had been working for donkey's years. So, whatever the hon. Gentleman claims, he cannot claim that his Government had a particularly sparkling record in this respect, and my observations have not discovered any very clear plans for the future.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong in principle for any Government to allow walkers who retire from industry at 65 or 60 years of age to retire at poverty level? Is that principle right or wrong?

Mr. Worsley: For donkey's years we have all agreed that it is quite wrong, and the hon. Gentleman knows it very well. What he and some of his hon. Friends should remember is that one of the principal causes of inflation, though not the only one, is excessive wage


demands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat that one of the principal causes of inflation is excessive wage demands. Therefore, when a union demands an excessive wage award it is doing just what the hon. Gentleman indicates—

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose—

Mr. Worsley: With respect, I am seeking to reply to the point made by the hon. Gentleman by making this further point that if a union seeks to obtain a wage award greater than the productivity of the industry concerned, it is contributing towards the poverty of its elder members who previously worked in that industry.

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose—

Mr. Worsley: I will give way once again to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Spriggs: The hon. Gentleman says that one of the particular causes of inflation is claims by workers for wage increases which outstrip their productivity. Can he name any worker who helps to produce the wealth of the country who has claimed more than he puts into it? Can he name industrial workers who have achieved such an objective?

Mr. Worsley: The simple answer is that the majority of wage awards in recent months have been in that category. If we seek to pay ourselves more than we earn, we inflate the currency and in doing that we attack first of all the pensioner. In spite of the fireworks across the Chamber, I do not think that we are in dispute about that. I think we all accept that inflation hits the pensioner.
The hon. Member for Rotherham called this a stopgap emergency measure, and he is right. The point I want to make as a backbencher is that the sort of measure a Government bring in in a moment of necessity like this can easily become a precedent. I hope that this Bill will not become a precedent. That is not because I am opposing it—I realise that it will make Christmas a much pleasanter time for many people. Nevertheless, in the long term I believe that ad hoc payments of this kind are not the right way to secure what all of us want to secure—a dignified living standard for the old people. I do not think there is any dispute amongst us on that.

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs indicated assent.

Mr. Worsley: I am glad to have sedentary agreement from the hon. Gentleman that that is our common objective, although of course there are some differences, which one can exaggerate, I think, about the means. We all want to see people in retirement enjoying as of right an adequate income. We do not want to see them coming to the State for charity, for a payment given in an ad hoc or random way. What we want is an income for them which they feel they have earned, which is theirs as of right.
This is why the National Insurance Scheme was created and why none of the suggestions for amending it have ever proposed that it should be abolished. From the purely administrative point of view, it would be easier to pay pensions out of the general Consolidated Fund. From the administrative point of view, the general machinery of the National Insurance Fund is a complexity. But we keep it, and want to keep it, because it gives the recipient the feeling that he has earned the payment and that it is his as of right.
Therefore, it seems to me that we are on the right lines when we seek to provide pensions not out of the Consolidated Fund, not out of ad hoc payments from time to time, not—decreasingly, we hope—from supplementary benefits, but increasingly out of the National Insurance Fund and—at least we on this side hope—increasingly as well from the occupational pension and from private savings. because this is the true way to dignity in old age.
Although I accept that the situation demands it now, I believe that the Bill is a step in another direction and I hope it will not be a precedent. I have a nasty feeling, however, that it may well be a precedent. The best way to see that it does not become a precedent, to see that increasingly as the years go by we rely on pensions as of right and not on emergency measures of this kind, is to ensure that inflation is contained. This is why I believe that everyone who has the interests of pensioners truly at heart will support the Government in what they are seeking to do.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I welcome the £10 bonus for pensioners, especially since it is being paid before Christmas. The fact that to so many of those receiving it it will be of tremendous help is itself an indication of the desperate need. I have talked to many old people this weekend, and I know that the £10 for the single pensioner and the £20 for the couple will be greatly welcomed.
Whilst I am in the mood, I also congratulate the Government on introducing last year the annual review of pensions. As one who tried hard to get both Governments to introduce an annual review—being told that it was virtually impossible from the administrative point of view—I have come to the conclusion that anything which is administratively impossible and yet politically desirable can be done, and whatever their reasons, I am glad that the Government decided on an annual review.
Many cruel things will be said about the fact that the Government are making this payment due on 4th December, two days before two by-elections. But the Secretary of State for Social Services does not decide the date of by-elections. It is done, I understand, by the Prime Minister and the Government Chief Whip, and no doubt for once if questioned about it the Prime Minister would be satisfied with the co-ordination between at least two of his Government Departments.
This £10 bonus is, of course, contrary to the Government's stated policy, strangely enough—that of helping most those in need most. The fact is that the £10 bonus will be paid to a great many people who have no need of it whatever. I know of one couple who between them receive pensions of £70 a week. They have their national insurance pensions plus a pension from a good contributory scheme; yet they will get a £20 tax-free bonus. I do not object to that because I believe that basic pensions should be increased, and, therefore, this couple would be included. I think that the bonus is going to everyone, however, only because of the need for speed in this case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) pointed out, there are some people in great need who

will not get the bonus—for example, men below the age of 65, some of them with wives over the age of 65, who are in receipt of invalidity benefit. Many of them have been "on the sick", as they call it, for several years. Their need is very great. I wish they had been included in this help. Another group is the long-term unemployed. There is now a great number of unemployed, but I believe that those out of work for over a year would find a bonus paid to them before Christmas greatly welcome. This might even have made the Government more popular, although I would not have worried about that. The long-term unemployed are another group for which we should think seriously of setting a precedent.
The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) did not like the idea of the Bill as a precedent. I think that it is a good precedent if one does it often enough, and I think that during this next year—while we have to wait until the next rise in pensions, next October—we should think seriously about taking such action again. When we debated the last pension rise we thought the pension ought to be £8 a week at least. One way of achieving that without administrative difficulties is to do this by three or four, perhaps five, stages during the next 12 months.
The hon. Gentleman was right, that the answer lies in a sound basic pension, and when the trade unionists and the pensioners come here on Wednesday, as they will in their thousands, and urge a £10 minimum pension we ought to give it serious consideration. They should, too, because we have to realise what a £10 basic pension means: it means some £1,000 million net when we have allowed for all the tax reliefs and supplementary benefits payments.
Using the same basis for finding the money, we see it means a 50 per cent. rise in contributions from workers. I hope that the trade unionists will appreciate this. We may talk about spending less on defence or less on some other thing, but when we talk of an immediate increase in pensions we know that there are very few ways of raising the money immediately otherwise than through contributions. I would welcome that. I think we have got our priorities wrong, and that there ought to be more taxes


and more contributions—but with higher pensions.
I do not think that the Government's new scheme, the one we shall be discussing, I suppose, in a couple of weeks, will be of much help. People will pay 5¼ per cent. of their gross earnings to get a pension in current terms of £6·75, the existing pension. There will be a reserve scheme under which they will pay another 1½ per cent., and a man of 55 entering the reserve will get 4 per cent. of his earnings as pension. The 22-year-old who will be paying contributions for 43 years will get 19 per cent. of his pay as his pension. It is not good enough.
However, those are points for the future. At the moment I heartily welcome this bonus for pensioners this Christmas.

7.3 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), but I was surprised by the speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) because it is exactly an hour ago that the Opposition voted against measures to prevent inflation, so the hon. Member's speech seems strange in view of that fact. I think he will regret his remarks about the old-age pensioners and the by-elections, that the pensioners are being bribed. They are very proud and not bribable; the hon. Member was unfortunately suggesting that the Bill would act as a bribe. That is an insulting suggestion and I hope he will withdraw that remark as it was a very undesirable suggestion indeed.

Mr. O'Malley: I will not withdraw because there is nothing to withdraw. If the hon. Lady had listened to me she would have heard me say that I felt there was no need for me to take any part in yielding the cudgels of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and others of my hon. Friends. I confined my remarks to making two helpful comments to the Secretary of State, about how his Department could be given advice on this matter.

Dame Joan Vickers: I do not think the old-age pensioners will see it like that. The hon. Member made a very regrettable remark, especially considering that

at the time of devaluation right hon. and hon. Members opposite did nothing to help the pensioners, and that was a worse crisis than we have at present.
There are one or two questions I would like to ask about the Bill. I would like to know what the words
ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at any time during that week
mean. Do they mean that a person has to be in the United Kingdom in that week? Some people may be away; for health reasons people go to other countries for a time; and I want to know whether they will be able to draw this benefit.
Clause 2(5) says that two persons cohabiting as man and wife can qualify for the benefit. I welcome the fact that a Government Department is now recognising cohabitation. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and I have previously brought up this matter. I should like to know how my right hon. Friend will determine who, in those circumstances, will be able to benefit by that subsection.
Clause 2(3) says that the Secretary of State may reverse a decision under subsection (2) on new facts brought to his attention. Will there be any form of appeal? Will there be a tribunal? How will this be done? Will there be a long procedure so that people may not get their benefit in time for Christmas? I gather from Clause 2(5) that they may have to make a claim in writing, and this can take a considerable time. Will there be officials who will give people advice?
I should like also to know whether persons in local authority homes or other homes or hospitals who are assessed according to their means for weekly payment will have to include the £10 in their means for assessment for their keep. I should be grateful for an answer on that.
I was very pleased to hear that, under the family income supplement, if a man gets extra money in wages he will not be penalised. I think that the family income supplement is the only extra means-tested subject which the present Government have brought in, but I am still very worried about family income supplement, and I hope we will keep a close watch to see that wages are not kept down because of it and that employers do not pay inadequate wages


simply because they know that people can get the family income supplement. That is a danger to which I drew attention in a previous debate. There should be a minimum national wage, above the normal subsistence allowance.
I welcome this Bill as being of some help to individual people, but I am still sorry that we have not been able to do anything—I know the difficulty—for the war widows and widows who were widowed before 1950, who still do not get any pension at all. I was fortunate enough to be able in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill to draw attention to the plight of those 30,000 people. If the Government could find some way of helping them, that would be very desirable.
I welcome the Bill and I hope it is passed quickly through Committee so that those who are to benefit may receive the benefit in time for Christmas.

7.7 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) told us that he hoped that the £10 one-off bonus would not prove to be a precedent. I think he is going to be disappointed. Considering the almost uncritical enthusiasm with which the Government's gesture has been welcomed, I would think this a device to which the Government will resort every year. After all, it is a very conveniently popular but cheap substitute.
All of us, of course, are delighted that the Government have been compelled, not least by pressure from this side of the House, to recognise that something has to be done for the pensioners this winter, but the remarkable thing about the Bill is that it reflects the inadequacy of the Government's own recent uprating. To hear the Secretary of State, who came like Santa Claus and scattered a little sparkle around the Chamber—and then disappeared—one would not have realised that it is only six weeks ago that the Government carried into effect what was supposed to be their proper and fundamental answer to the old people's needs.
It is true that in the winter of 1964 the Labour Government introduced an emergency payment, but that was not a substitute for an adequate uprating; it was an additional advance payment on the

most generous uprating for years in the spring of 1965. In the House and in Standing Committee the Secretary of State has admitted that the Labour Government's 1965 uprating was very generous. I wish that some of my hon. Friends would occasionally pay a little more credit to what we did in the face of inherited difficulties, because that 1965 uprating put pensions in a better relationship to industrial earnings than they had been for many years—perhaps better than at any time, but certainly for many years. However, because when we came into office in October, 1964, we found that the Conservative Government, busy running up a balance of payments deficit of £800 million, had not made a single administrative preparation to put an extra penny into payment for the old-age pensioners we had to introduce a winter emergency payment to fill the gap until our proper uprating could come into effect.
But today we are facing an entirely different situation. In the past few months the Government have had a chance to deal with old-age pensioners properly. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends who are present this evening were with me on the Standing Committee discussing the National Insurance Bill. We argued then that an uprating to £6·75 in October of this year was utterly derisory, and we pressed for what was then the National Council of Labour figure for a single pension of at least £8. If our amendment had been accepted then, a single pensioner today would be getting not £10 a year but £65 a year.
What is the £10 supposed to cover? Is it supposed to cover the rent increases that the Government have deliberately introduced? Is it supposed to cover the rising cost of food? In that telling speech of his, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) pointed out that the recent uprating and the £10 were to deal with not only food price increases that had already occurred but, supposedly, the food price increases lying ahead. Everybody knows that the effects of our entry into the Common Market on the cost of living and, above all, on food will be calamitous for pensioners. Again, this is the result of deliberate Government choice and policy.
Or is the £10 supposed to be compensation for the value added tax to


be imposed next April? Between now and the next uprating deliberate Government action will have imposed an increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of living, increases on the essentials that old people buy. We are told that some prices will come down, and no doubt they will—the prices of luxury goods that carried the luxury rate of purchase tax. But those are not the things that dominate the budgets of old-age pensioners.
Or is the £10 supposed to avoid the situation of last winter when hundreds of thousands of old-age pensioners could not afford to keep warm? I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what were the actuarial calculations on which the Government based the sum. The sum of £10 cannot cover all these things. Many old-age pensioners and others this winter will be desperate—desperate for food, desperate for clothing and, above all, desperate for warmth.
Let us take the example of heating. The Opposition have pressed for months that all old-age pensioners on supplementary benefit should receive a special heating allowance of at least 50p a week. The Government have turned us down. Instead, we have had a derisory addition to the long-term addition of 10p a week. Announcing his last uprating, the right hon. Gentleman said that the special additions for heating would go up by 20 per cent. But 20 per cent. of what? We asked that question then, and I am asking it again now because we have never had an answer. How many old-age pensioners are getting the special heating allowance today? Is it 180,000 out of 2 million? That is the sort of situation that we ought to be talking about tonight.
The real answer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said, is an adequate pension. The figure which we endorse has now risen from £8 a week to £10, because the £8 figure, thanks to the rise in the cost of living, is already out of date. I say to the Government advisedly that one day we shall have to face up to it.
The Secretary of State referred earlier to the tripartite talks. Other hon. Gentlemen opposite have given us the hoary old canard that it is the demand for wage increases that puts up prices. Nobody wants an agreement to contain inflation

more than we do, but I say advisedly to the Government—and I speak as a member of my party's liaison committee with the TUC—that the Government will never get a voluntary agreement with the trade unions on a prices and incomes policy unless that agreement contains an adequate pension for all old people as of right. That is one of the passionate convictions of the trade union movement about the just society.
The £10 bonus is just tinkering with the problem, and tinkering with it in the most ineffective way. If the Government say that our proposals would cost too much money and that this is all that they can afford after all they had given away to the well-to-do, if they have put us in this position thanks to their tax reliefs—£3,000 million worth, one-quarter of it going to those earning more than £5,000 a year—so that we have only £80 million to spend, is this the best that we can do with it? I say this conscious that my own husband will be one of the beneficiaries. I do not consider that the one-off, indiscriminate, tax-free payment is in any way equivalent to saying that everybody as of right should have a proper pension without means testing. I do not believe that the two things are parallel.
Our duty tonight is to look far more imaginatively at the situation which will face inumerable old-age pensioners in the months ahead. We know that as the cost of living creeps up and up many people on low incomes live in positive fear. What, then, should we make our priority? We must face the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country who at this moment have acute special needs, needs which are not being met. This is a situation which the sum of £10 will do little to meet.
It is surely appreciated by everybody that the pensioner and the other categories such as the disabled, the sick and the unemployed—indeed, anybody who has to live on supplementary benefit for any period of time—have special needs in terms of food, laundry and heating Is it not significant that by this Bill the Government are giving an alternative to a permanent improvement in the condition of the poorest in the land?
Let us take, for example, the long-term addition, the hallmark of somebody


in real need. Anybody who has to live on supplementary benefit for any period faces real and desperate need, and this is why the long-term addition is made. The Government have increased the long-term addition by the derisory figure of 10p—a coin which some of us in this House would not bother to stoop down and pick up if we dropped it in the street.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Lady should speak for herself.

Mrs. Castle: The long-term addition comes at the end of a two-year qualifying period. If the Government really wish to deal with the problem of people in hardship, why do they not increase the long-term addition by 50p? Why do they not reduce the qualifying period from two years to 12 months? Why do they not place before the House a policy to give far more generous heating allowances based on a proper scrutiny of old people's heating needs, as was requested in a recent document by Task Force?
In an earlier discussion the Under-Secretary of State was very defeatist in his attitude to heating allowances. He said that there was a limit to the value of providing heating for houses which were so damp and badly insulated that there was excessive heat loss.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean) indicated assent.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman nods. The answer, he said, was proper housing. But these people are not in proper housing, and are not likely to be in the coming months. What does he expect them to do with his inadequate heating allowances—freeze to death?
The Secretary of State for the Social Services paid a tribute to the Post Office staff in hurrying through the payments despite the Christmas rush. We fully endorse that tribute. We have always known that trade unionists care about the pensioners and all the unfortunates in our society. There has never been adequate public tribute paid to the fact that Post Office Engineering Union members are giving their labour free to fit the telephones for disabled people under the "Alf Morris Act". Therefore, of course we endorse that tribute.
However, it was a little hypocritical, coming as it did from a member of a Government who were so keen to cut down the number of civil servants that they starved the Supplementary Benefits Commission of the staff necessary to carry out review visiting. The commission has been starved of staff to such an extent that civil servants recently struck against their excessive overtime. There has not been adequate examination of old people's needs, and there has been no review visiting to the degree that is required through no fault of the staff involved. This has not been carried out because we are faced with a gimmick Government.
The Government have not provided an adequate policy to deal with poverty—above all, poverty among the old. We are glad to have forced the Government to give at least this sum of money, but we badly need a Government who really understand how poor people live and who then decide to do something about it.

7.27 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I think the House knows that in debates on social security matters I try to avoid party controversy and, instead, seek to put forward specific recommendations arising from circumstances which are agreed between the parties. I try to make recommendations which can be implemented and which possibly will relieve hardship. I wish to emphasise that, in spite of what was implied in the tone of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), such hardship is of equal concern to Conservative Members as it is to Labour Members.
Of course we care about pensioners who are living in cold or who have to face a winter with inadequate nutrition. But what we expect from the right hon. Lady are positive recommendations which are workable and realistic. I shall listen to her speeches in future in the hope that we may hear from her details about the way in which money can be found to give benefits which are not subject to means test and which will really give effect to what the nation wants—not only, as again she implied, what trade unionists want. We are all ashamed of the conditions in which pensioners are living, and we are well aware of them, but the people who are helping the


pensioners most are those who are studying the problem with a view to making positive recommendations rather than those who seek to create an air of bitterness, as the right hon. Lady tends to do when discussing these matters.
The right hon. Lady dwelt on the problems of housing, but failed to mention that the Government have tried to solve the problem in another way by bringing housing allowances to people who live in rented accommodation and do not have the benefit of council subsidies. My recollection is that she and her hon. Friends consistently voted against the introduction of allowances to help poor people who find difficulty in meeting their rents. That was not a helpful attitude; it was partisan. She cannot answer me on that point because she knows that the policy of her party neglected the interests of poor people who do not live in council-subsidised accommodation.
In regard to inflation and the pensioners, I recall a prominent member of the Opposition saying that one man's wage rise was another man's price rise. It was the right hon. Lady herself who tried to draw attention to the need for productivity improvements to go hand in hand with wage increases. When wage increases run ahead of productivity improvements, as they have been doing in the past two years, prices must go up, and it is people living on fixed incomes and small incomes who suffer most. I have the feeling that there are right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches who know that the very large claims for wage increases which have been made especially in recent months are dreaded by the pensioners. Perhaps it is a feeling of guilt that emphasis is now laid in speeches from those benches on the need to help the pensioners. But how is it to be done?

Mrs. Castle: If the hon. Gentleman says—and I agree—that pensioners live in dread of price increases, does he not think that it would be a very big contribution for the Government to postpone the introduction of the value-added tax?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I do not believe that the campaign which the Opposition are waging against the VAT is doing anything more than create

anxiety. What we need from them is solid evidence that ending SET and purchase tax and simultaneously raising VAT at the rate of only 10 per cent. and not raising it on foodstuffs will cause the dramatic increases in basic costs of living that they pretend. Sooner or later the Labour Party will realise that raising scares which do not eventuate does not add to its electoral strength in the long run.
The specific point that I wish to make is that one man's pension increase is another man's contribution increase. It has to be. That is why the Government are courageous and right to get away from flat-rate national insurance contributions which are not buoyant and do not change with the value of money. It is not really a matter of dispute between the parties that we should hasten towards a system where national insurance contributions are earnings-related. Then. when earnings rise contributions to help those on fixed incomes also rise, and if there is inflation the revenue is also buoyant. The Government can introduce measures like this Bill costing £81 million because the revenue arises out of the current situation in the economy.
The best solution of all is to end inflation. Then people living on savings, fixed incomes or national insurance pensions know where they stand and do not have to dread the future.
As for the timing of this proposal, first we heard that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the increase to be paid by Christmas. After that we heard with relief that, thanks to the special efforts of Post Office staff, for almost all beneficiaries it would be possible for the increase to be brought in in time for the Christmas holiday. We were delighted. But we were reminded that the mechanism for paying pension increases is pitifully obsolete.
I was a member of an all-party delegation which went to Brussels a year ago, where we spent an extremely instructive day. We saw the mechanism which the Belgian national insurance system uses for paying pensions, and we were shown how changes are introduced from time to time. When we were there, the Belgian authorities had already made two rates of increase in national pensions that year and were preparing for a third without flutter or anxiety.
I did not refer to my notes before rising, so I speak subject to correction. But I recall that for one reason or another—I think it was a rise in the cost of living—the Belgian authorities were anticipating that new figures for pensions would be decided upon by the Government towards the end of September. We asked when they would be able to make the corresponding payments to pensioners. They said that, provided that they had the data by 26th September, they would be able to make the first payments at the new rate by 10th October. Of course, the Belgian population is smaller than our own, and pensioners in Belgium total only about 1 million. But there are just as many complexities in the Belgian national pensions situation as there are ours. Therefore, it is merely a question of the extent to which computers are introduced and whether it is possible to match that degree of efficiency in the system operating here.
I do not know when the Government intend to tackle this problem. One hears alarming stories of the difficulties encountered by the Government in their computerisation programme for national insurance payments. I shall not quote rumours or dwell upon matters which are only hearsay. But it is my conviction that the EDP programme in the Department is sadly in arrear and possibly needs a major overhaul. Only then shall we be able to get away from the agony where we announce an increase but have to tell our pensioners that it will not be possible to implement it for weeks or perhaps months while they wait in need.
The whole House will welcome the extension of the family income supplement just as much as it does the Christmas bonus for pensioners. I feel I must point out that, although I do not oppose the Government's suggestion in this Bill, it makes for some inequity. Identical families in identical circumstances will get different treatment. Families which earlier in the year were on a lower rate of income and, therefore, qualified for family income supplement will, after they have been able to increase their earnings somewhat, still qualify for the benefits to which they were formerly entitled, whereas other families which are continuing at a steady rate will not be entitled because they never were. There is bound to be conflict between

those who are able to use the "passport" benefits and others who are not, although their circumstances are identical.
The Bill is proposing a way of escape from the difficulty which has arisen because a means-tested benefit was introduced here and the Government have rightly recognised the existence of the so-called poverty trap which afflicts those who lose means-tested benefit as they improve their circumstances. The Government have taken a step in the right direction in extending from six months to a year the length of time for which benefit can be paid. All the same, we must agree that the FIS system is a transitional measure. We look forward to more fundamental proposals being introduced in its place in due course.
I would like to make a specific suggestion which I have made many times before. It is that we should look seriously at the need to introduce family allowance for the first child and to pay them at a higher rate. The Government's Green Paper recommends that family allowance should be paid at £2 free of tax for all children, including the first, but that the introduction of benefit should be accompanied by the abolition of the child allowance for tax purposes. This is such an excellent idea that I do not feel disposed to wait until the parliamentary Committee has examined all the different aspects of the tax credit scheme. In terms of child benefits, we want it to begin as soon as possible.
It is so easy to do it. The family allowance system has existed since 1945, and the administrators of the scheme and the public are familiar with it. It works, and it is cheap to administer. The extension to the first child is not an insuperable difficulty considering that when one pays a family allowance to the second child one knows that the first child is in existence. The administrative work has been done. I believe that it would be right in the forthcoming Budget to abolish the child tax allowance, increase the family allowance to £2 and make it payable to the first child. That would be the right solution to the problem that the Government are seeking to solve in this Bill.
That is not to say that I oppose the Bill. I do not. I welcome it warmly, as I am sure do right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.

7.40 p.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: I also welcome the £10 allowance which the pensioners are to get for Christmas but, like my hon. Friends, I realise that it will bring only temporary relief from financial hardship.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred to heating costs. Hon. Members have said that the £10 allowance will be of tremendous help at Christmas. I remind the Government that gas and electricity bills come in at Christmas. Therefore, the £10 will help not towards the Christmas festivities, but towards the payment of those accounts.
My right hon. Friend also spoke about pensioners living in bad housing and therefore damp conditions, and the need for extra help with heating costs. Many old-age pensioners in my constituency live in multi-storey blocks of flats with under-floor electric or gas warm air central heating. They have no option but to use those forms of heating. Those are the forms of heating provided in those blocks of flats and they have to be used. One can economise on such heating only by turning it off. But one cannot live day after day in a multi-storey block of flats with the wind howling round the building without any form of heating.
I am not clear about the Secretary of State's intervention concerning discretionary payments for heating allowances. Several forms of heating allowance designated by the Department of Health and Social Security are paid to the ill and the housebound. However, these extra allowances for heating are decreased by the amount that the old-age pensioner receives by way of long-term allowances. Therefore, to all intents and purposes the pensioner is excluded from benefit.

Mr. Dean: It might be helpful to the House if I clarify this matter straight away. All these discretionary allowances will be completely disregarded for the purpose of the £10. In other words, people will receive not only the £10 but will continue to receive all the discretionary allowances which they are now getting. The £10 will in no way affect any of them.

Mrs. Fisher: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The special allowances made to old-age pensioners who have not saved sufficient money for the payment of their electricity bills are not discretionary. I refer to those pensioners who struggle week by week to have money—in stamps, tin boxes or a separate purse—for the payment of their electricity or gas bills. In my constituency old-age pensioners, faced with electricity bills for £30 to £32, which put them in great difficulty, often come to see me and say "We have got £18 towards it, Mrs. Fisher. What can we do?" The social security offices in Birmingham have been very helpful in these cases. However, these are not discretionary heating allowances; they are special allowances, over and above, which the social security offices make perhaps as annual payments.
When the pensioner goes, as he will at Christmas, to ask for the special allowance because he has not saved quite enough to pay his bill, will the £10 be taken into consideration?

Mr. Dean: Mr. Dean indicated dissent.

Mrs. Fisher: It will not. I hope that this will permeate right down. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to nod his head, but he is not the person sitting behind a desk in a social security office who normally has to interpret the regulation in the way that the Government intend. I should be grateful if the Minister would make this point clear so that on on account will the £10 be taken into account in any special allowance for which the old-age pensioner might apply. whether for clothing or perhaps a special claim for bedding or housing. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that that message gets through to every social security office? 
I welcome the Secretary of State's observations about the details of the scheme being advertised in newspapers and at post offices. However, many old-age pensioners do not buy, and therefore do not see, newspapers; some are very lonely and have few visitors, while others rarely go to the post office.

Mr. Thomas Cox: My hon. Friend has touched on a vital matter. Would it not be possible, when a pensioner goes to collect his pension at a post office, for a slip to


be issued by the Ministry—we have heard this evening of the willingness of post office workers to speed up the payment—explaining his position?

Mrs. Fisher: I sincerely hope that that possibility might be considered. At the moment, pensioners are very confused.
Pensioners in Birmingham have had rent increase notices. All those in receipt of social security benefits have been given forms which have to be completed and returned to the social security offices. I am not criticising the way it has been done. Generally it has been done very well and there is no problem for anyone in this Chamber. We would understand what it was all about. However, it is terribly difficult for an old-age pensioner trying to work out legal language. This kind of help has to be spelled out very simply. If we are not careful pensioners will become very confused about extra payments. Their minds will boggle at these things. Therefore, is it possible for a television announcement to be made on this matter? Ofter a home help is the only person who explains these things to a pensioner. The advertising of this system should extend beyond newspapers and post offices.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) spoke about allowances for residents in homes for the aged. Such people are allowed a certain amount out of their weekly allowances for pocket money; it is a fixed amount of £X out of the whole of the benefits they receive from the State. May we have an assurance that the £10 can be retained as pocket money by those in homes for the aged or in long-stay geriatric hospitals?
In Birmingham the social services department, in conjunction with the public health department, is most concerned about the great number of cases of hypothermia among older members of the community. It is unfortunate that public money, whether nationally or locally, is being spent wastefully. The services department and the public health department in Birmingham, together with the voluntary organisations whose members visit people in their homes, are preparing plans to counter any serious problem which arises. They amount to an alarm system which is sounded off if anybody finds a serious case of hypothermia. These

preparations would not be necessary if the basic needs of the elderly were accepted in a manner which would enable them to pay for their own requirements.
I welcome the £10 for the old-age pensioners. I should welcome £10 being paid quarterly.

Mr. Stallard: Weekly.

Mrs. Fisher: My hon. Friend says "weekly". That would be an admirable solution, but I recognise that the Government will not go for it as a weekly payment.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that while most hon. Members welcome the £10 lump sum payment, they feel that the Government, being responsible for the old people's plight, should now increase the old-age pension to the extent sought by the old-age pensioners' associations—that is £10 for a single person and £16 for a couple?

Mrs. Fisher: No doubt when the pensioners lobby the House on Wednesday the Secretary of State will be able to give them some hopeful news. Perhaps he will tell them that he can put a little more in their Christmas stocking. Perhaps he will say that as well as the £10 for Christmas he has in mind for them an excellent New Year's gift. After hearing from the old-age pensioners, perhaps he will be moved by the serious plight in which thousands of them live. We hope that the Bill is a step in the right direction and that it will be followed by a living pension.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said that many pensioners were confused by the forms they had to fill in and by many of the manifestations of modern life. That is true and it is very often why, though they would never admit it, their money does not go further. They are particularly confused by decimalisation. So am I. Many pensioners, although they would not admit it, are not the best managers and that is why they get into difficulties. However much their payments are increased, this will not necessarily enable them to provide the heat, the light or the food they need. We must examine much more closely the special needs of the pensioners, although I know that the subject


has already been studied by various groups.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: I do not accept that old-age pensioners are not good managers, if that is what the hon. Member is suggesting. The old-age pensioners I represent are very good managers but the pension is insufficient to meet their basic needs.

Mr. Boscawen: Not all pensioners are confused, I agree, but some of those that I know appear to be extremely confused by the various manifestations of modern life.
Like the hon. Lady I welcome the £10 benefit for Christmas, not least because it will go to many groups of people who would not otherwise draw their pension in full because some of the money is clawed back in taxation. I agree with the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who said she strongly suspected that this payment would be a precedent to be set for future years. I too can foresee enormous pressure on Governments in future to hand out £10 at Christmas to pensioners. That would be a dangerous thing. The tendency would become for Governments to hold back, say, 20p of the pension per week as a sort of enforced saving in order to give a bonus at Christmas. I believe that to be undesirable and open to abuse.
The payment this year is a special case and it is an emergency measure but I would greatly mistrust it if it were repeated year after year.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Why does the hon. Member describe the payment as an emergency measure when the Minister says that it has nothing to do with a cost-of-living increase?

Mr. Boscawen: The payment is undoubtedly part of a package of measures designed to overcome inflation. One of the reasons for it was to try to win agreement with the trade unions and the CBI. The right hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about increasing the pension to about £10 a week. Of course, we should like to see that. But such a move would create one great difficulty to which I cannot see an answer. It concerns those on supplementary benefits.
If the pension were increased to £10 a week, the numbers of people receiving

supplementary benefits would be greatly increased. If supplementary benefit is increased by £3·25 for a single person, the same amount as the pension is increased, the poverty level will rise also. Perhaps the problem will be overcome by the introduction of the earnings-related State second pension which would not push up the poverty level for those on supplementary benefit. But if there were to be an increase to £10 in the pension next year and the supplementary benefit level were to be increased by £3·25 there would be a large increase in the number of people eligible for supplementary benefit. I should be interested to hear how that problem could be overcome.
There is also the question of the Exchequer contribution. The figure of 18 per cent. or 19 per cent., which has been bandied around since the war, must be looked at afresh. I cannot find why the Exchequer contribution should be as low as that. It seems to have stayed at that level, and now that there is to be annual growth of about 5 per cent. we should consider carefully whether the Exchequer contribution should not be increased to about 25 per cent.
Many claims will be made on the proceeds of increased growth—for example education, health, roads and all the other requirements of a modern society—but now that we are going into a period of sustained growth we can surely consider increasing the Exchequer contribution towards pensions. When the tax credits scheme is adopted the Exchequer contribution will increase considerably. I do not think it is possible to work it out exactly, but I should like to hear some estimate of it.
We all welcome anything that we can do for the elderly, but we must be suspicious of this measure. We must ask whether this is the best way of helping these people at this time. We are giving the most to those most in need but a flat rate tax-free to everybody irrespective of the tax that people pay. Although I welcome this help this year, I have grave misgivings about any suggestion that it might be repeated.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Like all other hon. Members, I warmly welcome the payment of this lump sum. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)


asked, what exactly is it for? Is it to take account of the increased cost of living of recent months, or is it an attempt to influence the unions to accept the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill in any talks which are to take place in the future?
For many months hon. Members on both sides have repeatedly brought the plight of the elderly to the attention of the Secretary of State. When the Chancellor announced last March in the Budget that pensions were to be increased, he said that it would not happen until September. An Early Day Motion called for a lump sum to compensate for that delay, but it was refused. We were told that it would be too complicated and expensive. Hon. Members know, from their contacts with retired people, the great bitterness that they felt about this delay. I therefore welcome the fact that this payment is at long last to be made, and no one will dispute its urgency.
My constituency in inner London has a large percentage of retired people. I am myself this evening suffering from the effects of the cold weather of the last few weeks, and already some pensioners have told me that they have started to go to bed very early at night because it is the only place where they can keep warm. They cannot stay up as long as they would like because it would mean higher bills for heating, light and television. So they go to bed to keep warm and, far more important to many of them, to save money. This highlights the problem they face.
During the last few days we have discussed the Government's proposals to counter inflation. I do not want to make party points about who causes inflation. Nothing earns greater contempt from pensioners than political parties claiming a far superior record to that of their opponents in the welfare of pensioners.
Inflation affects everyone but most directly the pensioner. All of us represent pensioners, whatever our constituencies. But when I hear some of the speeches made here I wonder what kind of contact some hon. Members have with pensioners. Pensioners have to pay the same costs for food, light and heat. For the reason which I have outlined we should not encourage the Secretary of State,

therefore, to think of this as a once-for-all payment.
The State retirement pension, even when someone is receiving supplementary benefit, is not enough to live on. If anyone suggested that now, I am sure that he would not do so on Wednesday, when hundreds of pensioners will be lobbying to inform us of their position.
We should therefore consider a yearly lump sum. Few pensioners can save enough during the year to enable them at Christmas to do what we all like to do—buy those things that they would not think of buying throughout the year. Nothing concerns us more than the kind of problems we hear at our weekly surgeries or when we visit retired people's organisations.
A fortnight ago at one old people's club I asked some ladies what they were going to do for Christmas, and whether they would have the grandchildren over. One old lady, near to tears, said "I am not going to invite my grandchildren because it is natural for them to expect me to be able to give them some small present. I just do not have enough money to be able to buy them something. Rather than disappoint them and upset myself, I asked my daughter not to bring them to see me this Christmas."
Last Tuesday the Secretary of State told me that he had met representatives of retired people's organisations in October. So he must be fully aware of their great concern because of their belief—I believe that they are right—that their standard of living is being eroded month by month. There are 8 million pensioners in this country; so millions of families must have a direct or indirect relationship with pensioners, and they must be fully aware of the kind of problems that pensioners face.
The question has been asked tonight: if we want pensions to be increased, how is that to be done? We should have the courage to say to the people "If you really believe that retired people should have a decent standard of living, we shall have to pay for it"—and that includes us, as Members of Parliament—"in increased contributions." If that were put to the people, there would be overwhelming support for it. I made the point to the Minister last week in a


supplementary question that at the three party conferences the pensions spokesmen of each of the parties spoke about the plight of pensioners and how we could help to improve their standard of living. As there appears to be unanimous agreement between the three political parties represented in the House that pensions should be increased, why do we, as a Parliament, shy away from saying to the wage earners that we believe that pensions should be increased and that the increase can come only from contributions and Exchequer grants? That is what we are campaigning for, and it is not a party political issue. If we did that we should get away from the argy-bargy we hear in the House from time to time. It would be deeply respected by pensioners, and by wage earners.
We should start to realise that if pensioners are to have a decent standard of living, that standard must be tied to the average national weekly wage. For too long this has been another issue which we have talked about but rarely accepted as being the first essential in ensuring that pensions keep pace with the general rise in the cost of living and our general prosperity. One thing is often completely misunderstood in the House. We seem to think that when a person has retired he ceases to have certain rights. Why, for example, do we think that when a woman who has been working retires she no longer has the right to buy a dress or a new coat when she wants one, or to have her hair attended to if she wishes? Many women do this when working, but shortly after ceasing work many of them are unable to do so. Equally, many men like to visit the local pub for a drink or spend a few shillings a week on the football pools. Why should they not still have the right to do that when their retire?
That is what we should consider when talking of pensioners' rights and standard of living. Surely this is what Parliament is all about. We are trying to represent the needs and views of people, and 8 million retired people form a very substantial part of the population. I shall not go into the rôle they have played in the past. Surely all of us must be fully aware of that. Why do we not have the courage to say "We agree with the pen-

sioners' point of view and are prepared to campaign in support of it"? If we are prepared to say that, this evening's debate will have some relevance. It will certainly have a great deal of support from pensioners and the vast majority of people. If we fail to say that, they will regard the debate as utter hypocrisy in relation to their present needs.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) raised the question of the covering of the long-term unemployed and those in receipt of sickness benefit. It would be interesting to know the figures for people who, whilst not registered as unemployable, have very little chance of getting another job. Though fit and willing to take a job, for some there is very little hope of entering remunerative employment again. Most of this group of people, the unemployed, the sick and the injured, will probably be signing on the dole for perhaps the next 10 or 20 years before receiving a retirement pension.
On reading the Bill, I felt very dismayed about the large number of people who will not receive the £10 lump sum prior to Christmas. We welcome the Government's decision to make this payment possible. However, it is the Opposition's duty to draw the Government's attention to the large number of people who will not benefit but should benefit. My plea to the Minister is that in Committee an amendment should be introduced to bring in the groups of men and women to whom I have just referred. The Minister would have the support of the Opposition for such an amendment.
Some old people live in older properties, perhaps in two- or three-bedroomed houses. One has only to visit some of their homes to find that, as a result of insufficient money to effect repairs and maintenance, those houses are very often cold and damp. During the last cold spell, in my three-bedroomed house I must have spent at the very least £10 on fuel alone. We have not wasted it. But what about the old people, whose pensions do not provide them with the nourishing food required to keep the body warm? If they cannot afford the food, at least they should have a warm home.
Of the many examples I could bring to the Minister's attention one is rents. I hope the Minister will look very closely into rents. Only last Saturday morning, at my interviews in St. Helens, I met a pensioner who had been forced to leave his home under a rehousing plan. He used to pay £1 a week in rent. The house was far from being a slum, but because of a development scheme it had to go. The council rehoused him, and his new rent was £2·58. The pensioner received a letter assuring him that the rent would remain at that level, only to receive a later notice stating that he was to be charged a higher rent of £3·82. This man receives an industrial pension of between £1 and £2 a week from the corporation in addition to the State pension.
Many old people and even some young people complain to me that their electricity or gas has been cut off because of non-payment of bills.
The Minister could do the community a service by taking the old-age pensioners' case out of the arena of party politics. The National Old Age Pensioners Association has proposed that there should be a pension of £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple. The association is not asking for exorbitant figures.
On Wednesday there is to be a mass lobby of old-age pensioners in which, for the first time in the history of the pension case, the larger trade unions are to take part. The Government should heed this warning presented by the change of policy on the part of some trade unions. I welcome the assistance of the trade unions, because for far too long pensioners have been left to their own resources.
A man can be a paid-up member of his trade union for upwards of 50 years. The day he retires he ceases to be a member of his union and he has no more trade union rights. On Wednesday I hope to see the beginning of the professional trade union negotiator throwing the weight and might of the trade union movement behind an attempt to influence the Government to do something for the pensioners. My constituency will be well represented.
In the event of Wednesday's mass lobby wishing to send a deputation to put

a case to the Minister on behalf of all pensioners, will the Under-Secretary be prepared to receive such a deputation and pass the message on to the Government immediately? I am sure that the Under-Secretary has just as much sympathy for the pensioners as we have. I do not make a submission for the pensioners on a party political basis.

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend is right; I confirm that the Under-Secretary has a deep sympathy for pensioners. The difficulty is that in the practical application of that sympathy he introduces a new pension scheme which will result in leaving millions of old-age pensioners dependent on supplementary benefits until the 21st century. Therefore, although one can accept the Under-Secretary's sympathy in practical terms, he will achieve nothing for the pensioners.

Mr. Spriggs: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I must disagree with him slightly. We must avoid straying into the party political arena on this vital subject. If we tell pensioners that we believe that they do not receive sufficient to live on, let us prove it. The Government said that they could not make pensioners a lump sum payment before Christmas, but they decided to make inquiries and, after consulting the Post Office workers and others, they found that by means of people such as Post Office workers making a superhuman effort the payment of £10 could be made before Christmas. Where there is a will there is a way.
It behoves everyone who has something better to look forward to in his old age than the State pension—namely, superannuation or an industrial pension worth having—to do more than just express sympathy for those living below the poverty line. On Wednesday evening the trade union representatives together with the pensioners will give us a message through the mass lobby. People who express their sympathy should be prepared to prove their words by action—that is, we must all help to find the money, I know that it will be costly, but it is far more costly for the person who dies from malnutrition in old age or for the person who dies before his time through lack of nutrition or lack of warmth. We are talking about people.
If the trade union representatives show their willingness to make a contribution to raising the pension to at least the level proposed by the National Old Age Pensioners Association, I hope that the Government will accept the proposal. I assure the Under-Secretary that if the Government were to do so both sides of the House would welcome it.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) that it is time that the matter of pensions was taken out of the political arena. I can only say, having been in the House for close on two hours this evening, that I wish he would persuade some of his colleagues to do exactly that.
One thing which has amazed me during the last two hours is that hon. Members have continually been asking the reason for the increase, whether there is some veiled threat behind it, whether it is to do with trade union wage negotiations and so on. For myself, what matters is that the pensioners are to get £10. I am not really concerned about the reasons which have led to that decision; I am more concerned with the decision itself. I appeal to people to stop carping about it and to give a sincere welcome to the fact that this £10 is to be paid.
The suggestion has been made from the Government benches that it would be dangerous policy to pay this sum annually. I dissociate myself from such an expression of opinion. For many old-age pensioners the only Christmas present they will receive is the £10 which the Government propose to pay them. In addition, as has been mentioned by an hon. Member on these benches, old-age pensioners get as much joy from giving as from receiving and it may be that this £10 bonus will provide them with their only opportunity of giving a present.
On both those counts I welcome the £10 bonus, and I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of making it an annual payment instead of subscribing to the view that this would be a dangerous policy.
I hope too that the Minister will remember—some hon. Members seem to be in danger of forgetting it—that poverty is only half the problem of age. Loneliness is as vital a part of the problem as

poverty. That is why in my maiden speech I appealed for pensioners to be given free television licences. I make that appeal again tonight because it would cost the Minister less than £10 a pensioner. Indeed, if two pensioners were living together in the same house the Minister would get away with this for half price because only one television licence would be required for two people. I make this plea for free television licences not on economic grounds but in order that we can meet half of the problem of loneliness by means of the companionship that a television set can give to a pensioner.
My next point relates to certain matters which were raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) concerning heating allowances. I remind the Minister from my recent local government experience that many pensioners have to have under-floor heating and district heating in the bungalows in which they live; and in addition, if they are living in flats it is essential that the heating be kept on not merely for their benefit but for the benefit of all the other people living in the block. If in a block of flats there are areas where the heating is not in operation, this has an adverse effect on the maintenance system in the whole of the block of flats. I ask the Minister to remember this when assessing heating allowances for pensioners.
My next point is the main reason why I decided to speak in this debate. I was a little concerned that when an hon. Member on the Government side was speaking of the need for residents in local authority homes to be allowed to keep the £10, the Minister nodded his head in agreement. As a member of a local authority and as one who was an active member up to four weeks ago, I appeal to the Under-Secretary not to instruct local authorities—the decision surely rests with them—that the £10 shall be paid in cash to all residents in old people's homes. If an instruction is to be given it should be to the effect that the money shall be used for the benefit of people in old people's homes. In my own authority at Rochdale we have 13 or 14 old people's homes and many of the people in those homes are 85, 90 and 95 years of age. They have no living relatives. They are past the age of discretion in terms of their mental capacity. We should be doing


them a disservice by putting a £10 note into their hands. Many of the people in our homes for the aged are those whose relatives have deserted them.

Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that anybody who is not certified should not receive the money in cash? It is desirable that people in such homes should be able to give presents. They must have somebody whom they feel they can help, by spending the money themselves.

Mr. Smith: I have an intimate knowledge of the situation. There are people living in homes for the aged who have no relatives for whom to buy presents. They never have a visitor in 12 months and, therefore, they have no visitors for whom to buy presents. When they die, the people who appear on the scene are long-distant relatives who have never been to see them for years. However, they come in for the pickings at the time of death.
Some of the residents of homes for the aged in Rochdale have considerable sums of money. They save from week to week from the basic old-age pension because they do not know how to spend the money. They are not capable of spending it.
I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that the £10 is used for the direct benefit of the people in homes. Instructions should not necessarily be given that the money shall be handed in £1 notes to the person for whom it is intended. I accept that there are some people in homes for the aged to whom the £10 should be paid. However, to those in a home with, for example, 10 people of 90 years of age—a common situation in Rochdale—a good theatre trip, a good booze-up or something like that would be just as relevant as putting 10 £1 notes into their hands and saying "Go out and spend that." In any case, they are physically incapable of spending it.

Mr. Marks: Who does the hon. Gentleman suggest should make the decision?

Mr. Smith: The people who now make the decisions should continue to make them. That is why I urged at the beginning of my speech, when the

hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) was not present, that they should not be sent an arbitrary letter with instructions on what to do. The matter should be left to their discretion, with a clear statement that the money shall be used for the benefit of the people to whom it is being paid.

Mr. Marks: I was in the House for both Front Bench speeches. I have been present for most of the debate, except for the past half hour. I still think that somebody must make the decision as to which people in homes, if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is implemented, shall receive the money in cash. But who is to have this bower? Is the money to be handed to the director of social services or the matron of the home?

Mr. Smith: In legal terms the decision should be made by the director of social services and in practical terms by the person most closely associated with the old people concerned, which would usually be the matron of the home.
Whilst I welcome the £10 bonus being paid to pensioners, and whilst I think that the bonus should be an annual payment, I hope that this will not be taken as an excuse for not raising the basic pension. The sooner pensions are linked to wage levels and the cost of living the better.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It was pointed out earlier in the debate, although not very seriously, that the payment of the lump sum to retirement pensioners coincides with two by-elections. I am sure that it is a pure coincidence, because I cannot seriously believe that any Government in their right mind would think they could bribe intelligent people in that way. The constituency in which I live, where a by-election is pending, is not exactly a Labour stronghold, but I think it will become a Labour gain. Even a lump sum payment of £20, £30, £40 or £50 would have no bearing on the result.
As political representations is determined by class division in our class society, by and large it follows that the payment will probably represent a serious good turn to more pensioners living in the Uxbridge constituency than to those in Sutton and Cheam, although there are in Sutton and Cheam a number of people


who are really up against it. Pensioners cannot live on the new rates of £6·75 for a single person and £10·90 for a couple. Therefore, they are driven to supplementary means-tested benefits.
A number of us were involved in the consideration of the National Insurance Act, and this is not the first time that we have put our minds to the problem. The Minister's speeches throughout the consideration of that Act gave no hint that the Government would introduce a measure of the kind we are considering. The whole logic of his arguments then pointed in the reverse direction.
Why are we considering such a Bill at this time of the year? Most people understand the reason, and perhaps it is not necessary on this nice, quiet Monday evening to underscore it. But I must say for the record that it is a part of what was thought to have been the package proposed during the negotiations or discussions—I do not know that "negotiations" is the correct term—between the Prime Minister and representatives of the trade union movement. It sounds to me very much like a proposal made by the Prime Minister in the heat of the moment as a sop.
Therefore, I do not share the almost jubilant acclamation of the payment of this miserable sum of money. It will be regarded as miserable in parts of Cheam and Sutton, because it will probably mean only that people there can buy two or three bottles of whisky this Christmas instead of the lesser amounts to which they are accustomed. In fact, I do not think the sum of money involved even affects that possibility, either. It will affect in a very tiny way the plight of the two-thirds of the old-age pensioners living on or near the basic national insurance pension.
Pensioners in my constituency are among those in the forefront of the current trade union pensioners campaign, and some of them will be lobbying hon. Members on Wednesday. That lobby will probably be the biggest turnout on this question ever known. The Government and particularly the Secretary of State, who is not now present, will be very much mistaken if they believe that this sop will in any way detract from or counteract the national determination implicit

in that campaign for the retirement pension increases which are sought. Even the sums of £8 for a single pensioner and £14 for a couple proposed in our amendments to the National Insurance Bill of last Session have been overtaken by the galloping rise in the cost of living, and the amount for a couple should be £16.
Had a Labour Government continued in office there would undoubtedly have been an annual review system; yet here we have a Government which have presided over an astronomical rate of inflation boasting of such an annual review. Most of the recipients of the £10 bonus know that it is nothing to write home about. It can therefore be correctly described as a sop, and Conservative speeches tonight have been very revealing in that respect. If there is a case for giving pensioners this very modest amount there is also a case for giving it every year, regardless of means. In this connection the speech of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) had to be taken notice of, because he was a member of the Standing Committee on last Session's National Insurance Bill.
Whatever can be said of this sum of money, it cannot be regarded as solving the problem of the 8 million old-age pensioners, most of whom during their working lives have not been able to make adequate pensions arrangements. The great deficiency in what was said by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) about what life would be like in the future is that it had nothing to say for the 8 million pensioners who when they packed up work in industry found that they had to drop from a normal weekly income to the present miserable pension.
The Government are hoist with their own petard of this miserable sum of money. It mocks at the whole case they have been presenting. I am not opposed to the idea of a Christmas or holiday bonus. Working-class people save for simple projects. They cannot save enough for a rich old age because they do not earn enough to do so, and the bulk of present-day pensioners are shut out from the starry-eyed highways towards better pension deals in the future which we have had from both parties. While such deals remain in the nebulous future, the present fact of life is that millions of our fellow citizens have to try to make ends meet.
Society has ensured that our old will live longer through the provision of better medical services, welfare schemes, meals on wheels and the like. Within that context, women are living longer than men. Yet we do not put sufficient into the handbags of widows. They should not merely be provided with a telephone by which they can sit waiting for people to call them. They need more stimulus than that. During discussion of the National Insurance Act last Session, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) pointed to the need for intellectual stimulus and for enabling elderly people to travel around in so far as they were able to do so. That cannot be done unless they have money in their pockets. They will not get it by sops of the kind enshrined in the Bill.
I feel exceedingly sorry for the Under-Secretary of State, but on balance it is the old-age pensioners, my kind of people, for whom I have the greatest compassion and sympathy in their plight under the present Government.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State was distinctly modest in introducing the Bill. Perhaps this was hardly surprising, because there is so much in the Bill to be modest about. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), in an incisive speech, struck exactly the right note when he called the Bill a sop. The political function of the Bill is merely to cast a veneer of respectability and fairness over the freeze resulting from the crassly unfair social and economic measures of the Government in the last two years. Even for the present Government, this Bill must surely be one of the thinnest and most transparent veneers we have had to take.
The modest, not to say exiguous, benefit being offered to pensioners is demonstrated by the fact that for the single pensioner this once-and-for-all donation, as the Foreign Secretary likes to call it, will represent an increase in purchasing power for pensioners at an annual rate of a mere 20p per week.
The total being offered to pensioners is £80 million. So far, the National Insurance Acts have more or less kept the pension in line with the rise in the cost of living, and, as hon. Gentlemen have said earlier in the debate, the reason why

we have an annual review is precisely that the rate of inflation has nearly doubled in the last two years. It had to happen. By this Bill, for the first time an attempt is being made to provide a tiny extra gain for the pensioner over and above limping along behind what can only be described as a galloping rate of inflation. But how far are the Government going, and is this not yet another shallow pretence by which the pensioners and the poor are merely being offered crumbs which have fallen from the rich man's table?
By comparison with the £80 million now being offered to the pensioners, the 1½ per cent. of the population with incomes over £5,000 a year—I have said this before but I make no apology for saying it again—have been offered in these last two years from Government handouts—I give the Government's own figures—£62 million from the 6d. cut in the standard rate of income tax, £45 from increases in child tax allowance, £110 million from the raising of the investment surcharge, and the ending of all excess tax over the standard rate on unearned income up to £2,000 a year, another £35 million from the raising of personal reliefs and the surtax reduction in the last Budget. The references are from HANSARD of 24th November, 1970, and 1st May, 1972. They are the Government's figures.
The last figure I come to is admittedly controversial. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept that the figures I have just given are not controversial. Now I refer to the last of the figures, the gains which have accrued to this group of people from the 5 per cent. cut in corporation tax. I have estimated it at £160 million, although I am well aware that the Treasury, for technical reasons, would give a figure nearer half that sum.
So, accepting the Government's view on that last point—though I do not—there have been gains to this richest group over the last two years from Government handouts, and not from any other source, of nearly £350 million, and this group is just over 150,000 persons. It is a gain of at least £1,000 a year to each of those on average. By contrast the pensioners are now being offered £80 million for about 8 million of them; that is, £10 each, or one-hundredth of what


has been handed over in the last two years to the Government's richest supporters. It is this kind of sordid fraudulence which makes the Government's pretensions to justice and reasonableness in this Bill such a sick joke.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: We recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern at the concessions in tax which have been made to senior management, but could he point to any major industrial country where taxation of senior management is higher than it is in this country? Does he not think that there may be some connection between our relatively stagnant, unadventurous economy and the penal rates of tax imposed on senior management by his Government?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman's last remark merely reflects the myth which is widely held and propagated in the City of London but for which there is no evidence. The Brookings Institution study in this country could not find any single cause of the relatively lower growth in this country. As regards the hon. Member's suggestion about the higher rate of taxation of senior management in this country he should bear in mind also social security contributions and tax allowances, and certainly tax is no higher than that imposed on our European and American competitors.
If the Government insist that the Bill is in some senses fair, even within the narrower canons of their own kind of fairness, why do they include only those who are over pensionable age? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) so eloquently asked, why do they exclude those who are in as great need and sometimes in greater need—for example, the long-term sick and the disabled and the long-term unemployed, many of whom, as a result of the Government's own economic policies, are now deprived of all insurance benefit? Why do they exclude widows who are under pensionable age? I was disappointed when the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) did not press her perfectly fair argument, for there is no reason why the Government should not have included them. Why have they not included the single-parent family, often those who find it most difficult to manage?
Why have the Government, who for their own reasons have so regularly stressed concentration on those in greatest need, abandoned this first-class opportunity to do just that at this juncture without recourse to a means test? If the Government are so clearly unwilling to give pensioners a proper deal by spending big money, why have they not decided instead, for example, to give a non-means-tested supplemented those many pensioners who are severely disabled?
According to the Government's own report—"Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain"—there are about ¾ million disabled pensioners, and within the expenditure of about £80 million the Government could perfectly well have provided £2 a week—weekly, not once and for all—as a supplement to the pension for all those who are undoubtedly far more in need than those merely over pensionable age. That would have been a far better selection of priorities for the aged and would have been non-means-tested.
Alternatively, why did not the Secretary of State use this opportunity to come clean from his persistent excuses and obscurantism about providing an automatic heating allowance for the aged, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) urged? He knows perfectly well from the abundant evidence in the two excellent reports produced by Task Force—"Old and Cold in Islington" and "Still Left in the Cold"—that the means-tested system of exceptional needs grants for heating has been a miserable and tragic failure. He knows perfectly well that the number of people in receipt of the grant is less than 2 per cent. He knows that the number of elderly people getting the top rate of grant, namely, 75p per week, about one-third of what it costs to heat a house or flat in the winter, is about one-fiftieth per cent. He must know that for £80 million he could provide a heating allowance as of right for all supplementary pensioners at a rate of £2 a week for each of the three winter months and £1 a week for each of the nine other months. That the Secretary of State has done nothing at this time in a non-means-tested way to bring help to those who need help most urgently is a central criticism of the Bill.
The main argument against the Bill adopts the premise of the Government's own approach. If the Government believe that their own tax credit proposals will be a major boon to the poor, especially to the elderly and the low-paid, if they are prepared to spend £1,300 million in five years' time for that purpose, why are they not prepared to do a great deal more now? If the Government believe that the poor, the pensioners and the low-paid who are mentioned in the Bill need this money, and if they are prepared to spend that sum in five years' time, presumably the Government accept that those people need it now. Why, for example, have the Government not been prepared to increase family allowances at this time? Surely it is inconceivable that such a vast sum as this can be raised entirely out of higher growth. Why cannot the Government markedly increase their offer for the poor now?
I return to the point about family income supplements. Why have not the Government been prepared to double family allowances and include the first child, since this undoubtedly would bring by far the most valuable non-means-tested help at the lowest cost to low-paid workers?
The Secretary of State artfully escaped the clear and unambiguous pre-election commitment by the Prime Minister that he would do two things in 1970. The first was that the family income supplement would work quicker and that it would include the first child. Two-and-a-half years have now passed and there has been plenty of time for the Government to raise family allowances and to extend them to the first child. Therefore, that argument has collapsed.
The second argument was much more valid; namely, that the low tax threshold had effectively invalidated the clawback procedure. I accept that point, but since the Government have considerably raised the tax threshold—I give them full credit for so doing—that argument also has collapsed. Therefore, there is no reason at present why the Government could not introduce a doubling of family allowances or, preferably, a child endowment type scheme.
Therefore, irrespective of what is finally decided in the middle distance about the tax credit proposals, why not increase family allowances now? It is

the failure to provide an answer to that question which shows what a major charade this Bill is with regard to the low-paid worker. All that is proposed for the low-paid worker is an extension of the eligibility period for FIS from six months to a full year. Apart from the tardy acknowledgement by the Government that a poverty wage trap exists, I believe that this will achieve very little. It will not mitigate family income surtax when eventually it falls, as it will if the low-paid worker becomes better off.
It is interesting that at the beginning of the debate the Secretary of State suggested that this would not be so because the FIS eligibility level would rise in line with the rise in the cost of living. But the whole logic of that argument is that he believes that in many cases the low-paid workers will not increase their wages beyond the rate of inflation—in other words, that they will stay poor or become poorer. It is significant that the right hon. Gentleman sees that as the only ultimate escape from the poverty wage trap. Nor does an extended eligibility period for FIS prevent the same effect being produced by the host of other means-tested benefits which also exist. I am thinking of rent and rate rebates, school uniform and clothing allowances, education maintenance allowances and a host of others—indeed, there are a total of 45 such benefits. The right hon. Gentleman believes that this will affect only live of those benefits.
Because these are not included in the Bill, I suggest that the figures produced by the Secretary of State in terms of the poverty wage trap are under-estimates. He accepts that at present 3 per cent. of the work force who are low paid are liable to losses of 80 per cent. or more on their earnings as a result of a rise in their wages. He has chosen a level above the highest tax rate ever imposed on senior management, as I hope the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will accept. The fact that this minimum estimate will not be greatly diminished shows just how small is the concession offered by Clause 3.
This is a small Bill. Nevertheless, no doubt one should be grateful for small concessions from the Government. But in terms of the political motive underlying the Bill—namely, providing a facade of justice to conceal the political realities


leading to the freeze and the Government's responsibility for it—this is an ill-disguised fraud, and it will not deceive—

Mr. Cormack: That is absolute rot, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Meacher: I accept all the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall. It is a sop. It has a political purpose which is quite different from the liberal interpretation that far too many people have given it—

Mr. Cormack: Rubbish.

Mr. Meacher: In those terms it will not deceive those who are becoming increasingly aware that for every £1 given to the pensioners and low-paid workers by this Government there have been hundreds and thousands of pounds given to the rich. In those real terms the Bill will be seen for what it is; it is a skim of concessions to conceal the sea of injustice beneath.

Mr. Cormack: Sour grapes.

9.11 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Every speech in the debate has given a sincerely warm welcome to the two provisions of the Bill. On that there has been general agreement on both sides of the House. But clearly the agreement ends there. On no account can we on this side of the House brings ourselves to look upon the Government as a collection of benevolent Father Christmases. The necessity for Christmas handouts to 8 million old people should be anathema to this House, and any self-congratulation is misplaced.
In itself the Bill is a symptom of the total failure of the present social security scheme. The majority of retired people desperately need this £10. But they will not spend it buying Christmas cards or holly. They need it for basic winter necessities—for warmer clothing, for extra heat and for extra light. Most retired people will not spend it on turkey and mince pies. For a treat, they may buy a luxury such as fish, fruit, meat or eggs—basic foodstuffs which under the present Government are rising in price every day. No wonder it has been suggested by many hon. Members that the £10

should be given not once a year but quarterly or monthly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), among others, pointed out the glaring omissions in the Bill. Those in receipt of sickness benefit, especially the chronic sick and disabled, will get no help this Christmas. The long-term unemployed who are rising in number under this Government and through no fault of their own are without work, will get no help this Christmas. Then there are widows under pensionable age and single-parent families. What sort of Christmas will they have?
Will the Under-Secretary answer the most important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) about technical knowledge of the operation of the Bill by social security officials, wardens of old people's homes and the pensioners themselves?
My hon. Friends the Members for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and others have pointed out that the Bill is an attempt to paper over the ill feeling generated by the Christmas freeze policy being brought in by the Government. Everyone in this House knows that those who will be affected by the Bill will see it for what it really is. After all, for them it is only a stopgap measure to see them over a few weeks of cold Christmas weather. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, it is a popular cheap substitute for a real pension scheme.
Retired people and all pensioners should not need to rely on this kind of handout. They want, throughout the year, whatever the season, whatever the cost of living, whatever the average wage, to rely as of right upon an adequate income for a decent life without having to lobby Parliament and ask for more.
Only a just, effective social security scheme will end, once and for all, poverty and need among the old, the sick, the unemployed and the low-income families. This Bill is not the answer.

9.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): Most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have welcomed the Bill.


It has had an understandably general welcome, because it brings benefit to 8 million pensioners in the £10 lump sum and to 100,000 families who are benefiting from the family income supplement at a total cost of around 80 million.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) described the Bill as a response to a crisis situation, a stopgap emergency. It is far from being that. Indeed, one of the aims of the tripartite talks which took place in recent months was to help the pensioners. All three parties to those talks were agreed, and at that time the Government said that if inflation could be curbed the pensioners would benefit and would have a share of the increased prosperity which would result. The Bill is an earnest of intention on the part of the Government as a direct response to that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the menace of inflation. How right were my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) when they pointed out the relevance of excessive wage claims in the battle against inflation. The hon. Gentleman cannot skate over that one. Surely it is now generally recognised that the pensioners' biggest enemies are those sections of the community who are taking out more than their fair share, because this inevitably leads to rising prices, and when we get rising prices the pensioners suffer first and hardest.
The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no increase in the value of the pension and that pensioners had fared worse under the present Government. Has he forgotten the annual review? From this year onwards pensioners have a firm commitment from the Government that pensions will be increased at least enough to deal with any rise in prices which have taken place during the previous 12 months and that more will be done, if possible. Indeed, on this occasion there has been a modest but real improvement of nearly 4 per cent. in the value of the pension.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) acknowledged the value of the annual review and the increase which had taken place.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Rotherham went on to talk about the date

of the increase and to tie that to certain by-elections. Was he really suggesting that we might leave the payment of this lump sum until the New Year? That really was not worthy of him. Again, the hon. Member for Gorton went out of his way to say how right we were to bring this increase on and to ensure that the pensioners had it before Christmas.
It has been no easy task. My right hon. Friend paid tribute to the Post Office workers who, at a very busy time of year for them, have responded to this widely expressed desire on both sides of the House that the payment should be put into operation before Christmas.
The hon. Members for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox), St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred to the pensioners' lobby and the view that had been put forward that the level of the pension should be £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple. Of course one understands pensioners' organisations and hon. Members putting forward a case for an improvement in pensions, but I was very sorry that none of those three hon. Members when making these points said a word about who would pay for the improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) pointed out that substantial sums were involved.

Mr. Spriggs: The Minister has just included me with two of my hon. Friends in saying that I submitted a case for an increased pension without showing how it was to be paid for. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reflect on what he has said, because I said that following Wednesday's lobby by pensioners and trade unionists they would come forward and show the Minister how the pension should be paid for.

Mr. Dean: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I remember his speech and I remember his referring to that point. I withdraw entirely what I said about him but my remarks still apply to his two hon. Friends.

Mr. Bidwell: Mr. Bidwell rose—

Mr. Dean: May I complete my sentence? It is only right that I should tell the House what the cost would be. Their proposal would cost an additional £2,000 million a year.

Mrs. Castle: Gross.

Mr. Dean: That includes the figure for supplementary benefit as well as for the national insurance benefits, which means that the gross figure and the net figure would be the same—assuming the same increase in contributory and non-contributory benefits, a pattern which we set last year and have continued this year. But an additional cost of £2,000 million a year would mean an increase in contributions of over £1 a week at the higher level of contributions.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the Minister stop messing about with this and direct his mind to getting nearer and nearer to our objective year after year, which was the purpose of my Private Member's Bill last Session? What can he tell us about real prospects of improvement and the cost of that per year?

Mr. Dean: There has been a modest improvement this year in the real value of the pension, there was a modest improvement last year and there is a firm commitment to the annual review. But in assessing any increase it is only right that the House should consider the cost, how it will be met and how much people will have to pay on top of their existing contributions.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned many of the well-worn arguments that we have heard on previous occasions but when he referred to the Brookings Institution as not being able to find a cause for growth or the lack of growth, that is as may be. When, however, we move from the realm of theory to the realm of reality, from the transformation from a nil rate of growth under Labour to a 5 per cent. rate of growth under the present Government—

Mrs. Castle: Nonsense.

Mr. Dean: —and to substantial reductions in excessive taxation, that is far more effective than the theories of envy that we have heard from the hon. Member tonight and on many other occasions.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), the hon. Member for St. Helens and the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke about exclusions and those sections of the community which are not included as recipients of

the £10 lump sum. Those qualifying are, broadly speaking, people over the age of 65 for a man and 60 for a woman who are getting a retirement pension, supplementary pension or other pension of that kind.
Some of the other categories have been mentioned. The hon. Member for St. Helens mentioned the long-term unemployed and the near-unemployable. But I ask the House to recognise that this operation is being carried out in record time. It was necessary, if it were to be paid before Christmas, to ask who needed this payment most and what categories could be readily recognised, either by the Post Office or by the Department, so that it could be done on time. This is to some extent, of course, rough and ready. That is the price we have to pay for this prompt response and to get this payment into operation before Christmas.

Mr. O'Malley: The House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation of why other groups are not included. Of course we understand that there has been a great effort and that special work is being done by Post Office staff to make these payments. If that is the reason for the exclusion, of course we understand it and we want these payments made for Christmas. Probably, therefore, we can come to some understanding across the Box. If that is the reason for this difficulty, I am sure that the widows, the disabled and so on will say "If you cannot pay it for Christmas, we will have it in the New Year", and if we move an amendment to that effect I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman knows, from his former experience in this Department, that once one departs from readily definable categories it is difficult to know where to stop. One could easily get into a position in which one included a person who was sick for just a short period, say one week. What we have had to do is find readily identifiable groups. I hope that the whole House will accept that the pensioners are the most readily identifiable and those to whom everyone is most anxious to see this payment made.

Mr. O'Malley: I understand the Government's difficulties; anyone on the Treasury Bench would have the same


difficulty. Can I push the hon. Gentleman a little further? I am sure that his sympathies rest with these wider groups. If one can identify readily available groups for whom we cannot make arrangements before Christmas but for whom we can early in the New Year, will the Government be prepared to look kindly at amendments—perhaps there could be Government amendments, which we would support—to assist in that way?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Member must not anticipate later stages of the Bill, but I have made it clear, as did my right hon. Friend, that in doing this speedy operation we have primarily in mind the pensioners, those who are over pension age.
I was asked about disregards. The Supplementary Benefits Commission itself decided that, with effect from 6th November, 1972, all disregarded income shall be ignored when discretionary special additions are considered. But the Bill provides that the special lump sum payment shall be disregarded for purposes of any legislation which has regard to a person's means. This includes rent and rate rebates as well as other payments which have been mentioned.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) asked us to make it clear how these payments will be made. I accept her point. Publicity material will be available. The publicity campaign will be beginning so that people know who will be entitled to these benefits. The main point I emphasise, however, is that in all cases the initiative will come from the normal paying agent in the case of the very large majority of pensioners with order books. When they present their order book in the week of 4th December, they will automatically receive from the post office, along with their weekly pension, the additional lump sum of £10. The onus, therefore, will be on the post office to see that that is paid.
There are some who receive their pensions quarterly or four-weekly and they, equally, will receive a payment in due course along with their normal payment arrangements. There is a small number of supplementary pensioners who are not receiving one of the qualifying benefits, and they will be paid by Giro order to be issued by the appropriate

local office by 4th December. There are a few other categories which will be paid either from our central offices in Newcastle or Blackpool or by the local offices.
These payments apply to people in old people's homes and people in hospital who are in receipt of the basic pocket-money level of pension. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) asked about this. He was worried about very elderly people who may not be able to manage the money for themselves. With regard to those in old people's homes, the answer is that in a great many cases these people have appointed someone as their agent to draw their pension for them. Quite often it is the authority in the old people's home or the local authority. Where that is so, the agent will be empowered to draw the money in exactly the same way as he draws the pension at present. I hope that that will deal with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I very much take the plea which came from him and a number of other hon. Members that we must ensure that all those concerned, not so much in the Post Office, as they will hear about this through normal channels, but the authorities in hospitals, old people's homes and so on, are fully informed as to the procedures. We plan to do that.

Mr. Harold Walker: I want to put this point beyond any doubt. The Minister will know that the normal practice in respect of retirement pensioners in hospitals on long stay and in Part III accommodation in some local authority homes is that the authority retains either the whole pension or a major part of it and gives the pensioner pocket money. Will the hon. Gentleman assure me beyond doubt that every individual pensioner will get his or her £10, or that it will be put aside for the pensioner and will not in any way be taken as part of a contribution towards keeping that person in the institution concerned?

Mr. Dean: They will be entitled to that money and it will be disregarded. In other words, it will not be taken into account in assessing how much they should nay towards their accommodation in the old people's home. Everyone, therefore, who is in receipt of a pension, even if it is at the pocket-money rate, will be entitled to the lump sum. There may


be cases, as I have said, where the pensioner has freely appointed an agent. Quite often one of the effects of appointing an agent is that the agent decides, on behalf of the person concerned, how the money should be used to that person's advantage. This will obtain with the lump sum in exactly the same way as it obtains with the pension at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about people who are absent from this country during the week of 4th December. The answer is that as long as their normal place of residence is in the United Kingdom they will receive the money like anyone else. She also asked whether there was a right of appeal. The answer is "No". This follows from the speedy one-off operation involved in a task of this kind.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and a number of other hon. Members asked about the number of people in receipt of the heating allowances. These are the special allowances over and above those which are already built into the pension rates, the supplementary benefit rates and the long-term additions to which all retirement pensioners and all long-term beneficiaries are entitled. At the latest count in November, 1971, 194,000 beneficiaries were getting exceptional circumstances additions which includes some provision towards heating. Of these, 159,000 were supplementary pensioners.

Mrs. Castle: We were told that there had been an increase of 20 per cent. I asked, 20 per cent. of what? What is the average amount?

Mr. Dean: I gave the right hon. Lady the answer when she asked this question on a previous Bill. The answer is 20 per cent. on the amount. All the amounts were increased last autumn by 20 per cent. The additional 10p on the longterm addition was completely disregarded for that purpose.

Mrs. Castle: But 20 per cent. of what? Will the Under-Secretary give us some indication by telling us what the average amount in payment is?

Mr. Dean: They were all increased by 20 per cent. of the three sums which

were available for these special heating allowances. All of them rose by 20 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: Twenty pence.

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked about the arrangements for paying the pension and drew attention to the machinery which exists in Belgium where increases in pensions appear to be paid out more quickly than here. My hon. Friend will recognise that there is a substantial difference between the arrangements in Belgium and those here. For one thing, I think that the pensions are paid only once a month in Belgium, which makes any changes much easier to promulgate than when they are paid, as most of ours are, once a week. Equally, the postman plays a much bigger part in getting the money to the pensioner than is the case in this country.
My hon. Friend said that the tax credit arrangements would help to deal with the one-child family which at present is not entitled to family allowances. This is so. One of the strengths of the system is that it will do that. It is, incidentally, one of the strengths of the family income supplement system too, which the hon. Member for Oldham, West again criticised.
Whatever criticisms were made of the family income supplement, it is by far the most effective way of bringing substantial help to families on the lowest level of earnings in full-time work. I need only quote the highest figure which can now be paid, namely £5 a week. Any improvement in family allowances particularly to bring in the first child which would bring anything like that order of help to the low income families would cost a very substantial sum.

Mr. Meacher: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's firm commitment that this Government would introduce family allowances, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that they have not done so when the one single good argument against doing it—namely, that the low tax threshold invalidated the drawback procedure—has been destroyed by the action of the Government in raising the low tax threshold? Will the Government now carry out their pledge, which would give


non-means-tested help not to 50 per cent. of those eligible, but to 100 per cent.?

Mr. Dean: We did not realise when we were in opposition how viciously antisocial the Labour Budgets had been. Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done much to reverse that tide and to take people out of tax and to raise the tax threshold, there is still nothing like enough margin, and the effect of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing would be still to bring into tax families on modest earnings who are not paying tax now. I do not believe that any of my hon. Friends would wish to see that situation.
I hope I have been able to answer most of the points that have been raised. If there are any that I have missed, I shall write to hon. Members. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Committee tomorrow.

PENSIONERS AND FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT PAYMENTS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for payments to pensioners and further provision with respect to family income supplements, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums payable by the Secretary of State under the provisions of that Act relating to pensioners, not exceeding the following amount in the case of a person, that is to say, £10 together with a further sum of £10 in respect of any spouse of that person;
(b) any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to that Act; and
(c) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of that Act amending section 6 of the Family Income Supplements Act 1970.—[Mr. Jopling.]

MINK AND COYPUS

9.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved

Mr. Speaker: I think it might be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we discussed the second Motion—
That the Coypus (Keeping) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mrs. Fenner: I was going to seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to discuss both orders together.
These orders renew for a further five year, from 1st January, 1973, powers which expire on 31st December, 1972, to prohibit the keeping of coypus and mink in Great Britain except under licence. These animals are not native to this country but are at large today as a result of escapes from fur farms which have taken place over the years. Both species are continuing to breed in the wild, but, whereas coypus are now largely confined to a small area of the Norfolk Broads, mink are fairly widespread throughout the country. Both animals can be very harmful. Coypus damage river banks and farm crops, particularly sugar beet, while mink kill poultry, freshwater fish, water fowl and young game birds.
It was for the purpose of bringing these pests under control that orders were first made in 1962 under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, a measure which, designed as a defence against the musk rat, also made provision for the powers it granted the Agricultural Ministers to be extended to cover other destructive alien mammals.
Besides regulating the keeping of such animals, the Act also empowers Ministers to take steps to destroy any found at large. This provision enabled the Ministry to mount a campaign against coypus between 1962 and 1965, with the result that a large number were killed, those remaining being confined to an area where they are able to do very little damage. It is unfortunate that, because


of the nature of the area, complete eradication of this pest has so far not proved practicable but it is being kept within bounds by the co-operative efforts of "Coypu Control", a consortium of local interests. An attempt was made by the Agricultural Departments between 1965 and 1970 to exterminate mink found at large, but complete eradication was not found to be feasible, and it is now left to occupiers troubled by mink to take the necessary control measures.
The orders which we are considering today prohibit the keeping of mink and coypus within Great Britain except under licence. They will replace orders which also controlled the importation of these animals, but, as we now have the Rabies (Importation of Mammals) Orders, 1971, which imposes strict importation controls, albeit for a different purpose, it is clearly unnecessary to renew the import control measures under the Destructive Imported Animals Act.
The prohibition on keeping, except under licence, is intended to prevent further escapes which would worsen the present situation. It is a condition of the licence that premises conform to certain requirements laid down in regulations as to the precautions to be taken to prevent the escape of these animals. The regulations are strictly enforced, and there have, in fact, been few escapes since the regulations were first introduced in 1962.
Perhaps I need say no more to convince the House that the orders should now be renewed for a further five years. The National Farmers Union, the Nature Conservancy and the Fur Traders Association have all been consulted and have indicated their agreement to their renewals.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Lady does not need to say any more to convince us. I take this opportunity of welcoming her on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. She graces it with rather more charm than some of her colleagues. She has added to the attractiveness of the Front Bench opposite. I say that with respect to some old friends there.
The hon. Lady has chosen a peculiar subject with which to launch her career. She was appointed to look after prices,

and the first task to which she attends is mink, which does not involve our old-age pensioners and others on low incomes.
Having paid some compliments to the hon. Lady, I turn my attention to the order. We welcome it, but there are some rather mysterious features in it. The order was first introduced in relation to an Act regarding the musk rat, or musquash, as it is better known. There is always something rather horrible in the idea of animals being killed to provide fur. It seems worse than killing animals for food. Clearly, there is a great deal of emotion involved in the subject.
The immigration of these animals having been allowed they have spread, sometimes because of the carelessness of farmers. The last time we discussed the matter was in 1962, when the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who is now the Leader of the House, took part in the debate. As Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he was in charge of food prices until recently. The Opposition were delighted to see him give up that responsibility. We have great hopes for the hon. Lady. The right hon. Gentleman said in 1962 that he could not understand why so long had been taken to deal with coypus and mink. The right hon. Gentleman said then that the rabbit clearance societies had been extremely successful in dealing with them. But it was he who later wiped out the grant for the rabbit clearance societies.
It is not the fault of the hon. Lady, who has been in office for only a week, but how do her Government square the problem of the mink and coypus, pests and vermin which commit damage to agriculture, with the liquidating of the assistance which was given to the vermin clearance societies? That was done in October, 1970, if I remember correctly, in the first flush of the cutting of public expenditure, when all wasteful public extravagances were to go by the board, including assistance for dealing with pests such as coypus and mink. But, lo and behold, we now not only have an order, but we see it extended for five years until 31st December, 1977. That is a curious date, to which I shall return.
The present Leader of the House said in 1962 that he wondered what the money to be provided then was to be spent on. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to


know why Government money was to be spent when we had managed to get on top of the problem in the previous two years without any Government money, except that which was provided through rabbit clearance societies. Yet he was the Minister who did away with them. To a large extent that system was operated by the county agricultural executive committee. That was the second body that was to deal with the whole problem. Lo and behold, by an odd coincidence the Government wiped it out with this year's Act.
The Minister has been warned of the mess her predecessor made. It is very unfortunate to place a maiden Minister in such a position.
I turn to the reason for the finishing date of 31st December, 1977. When we last had a major discussion on the matter in 1962 my good friend George Willis, then an Edinburgh Member, suggested that the 31st December date then proposed had something to do with Hogmanay. There is a more sinister date involved in the orders. Why 1977? What relationship is there between that choice and our entry into the Common Market? I hope that coypus and mink will not be involved in the problem of easy access that we shall discuss later this week.
I come now to a serious point. Are the orders in line with the Common Market regulations? If not, which have priority? We were suddenly told last week that the Common Market priority about which we had been lectured for a year no longer applied, that the Government could switch their priorities when they decided on a prices and incomes policy.
There are certain difficulties in the orders, particularly relating to the Interpretation Act, 1889. That Act is my daily bedside reading, but I find it difficult to understand article 2(3) of the orders in relation to article 2(2). I can understand paragraph (2):
The Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply to an interpretation of this order as it applies to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
But paragraph (3) says:
When this order ceases to have effect as aforesaid section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply as if this order were an enactment repealed by another Act of Parliament.
I do not understand what that means. If the Minister is wise, as I was in my

maiden appearance, she will not try to answer that question, but we should be glad to have clarification at some stage.
Last week we dealt with the prices and incomes policy. The hon. Lady is to be put in charge of the prices side. Her hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) proved the efficacy of the prices and incomes policy when she complained to a supermarket manager about the cost of a packet of Omo and he told her that she was correct and credited her with 1p—a very handy sum to be credited with.
How many pence would pay for a mink coat? The mink coat trade is extremely expensive. I am not asking the Minister to pay the same attention to controlling the price of mink coats as I shall expect her to pay to the cost of vegetables, fruit, meat and fish and all the other exempted foods, but there is an important point here. The agricultural community or the nation will have to pay to deal with the pests covered by the orders. The mink coat trade is a luxury trade, and many people find it abhorrent. I do not necessarily agree with that view, but to many people the idea of keeping animals to produce fur is unpleasant. No one can regard it as vital to the well-being of the nation, except for the money it earns in exports, which may now be about £1 million a year. As the Government believe in people standing on their own feet, we should tell the trade—rather than the mink farmers, who are often pushed quite hard on prices—which produces coats costing about £1,100, that it should pay a tax to meet the cost of keeping down the vermin that the mink become when they escape. A Government which believe in people standing on their own feet might say to the trade "Pay for the cost to agriculture of escaping coypus."
The points I have mentioned are serious matters and I hope that the hon. Lady will at least be able to answer some of them, though I do not push her to the extent of seeking interpretation of the original Act. I quite genuinely welcome her to the Dispatch Box, if only because for the last two and a half years I have not had satisfactory answers from previous Ministers.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on her appearance on the Front


Bench. It is perhaps not inapposite to say, when she is having to deal with two kinds of fur tonight, that we would much sooner see her in mink than in nutria.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has imported into the debate practically every current complaint of the Opposition—prices and incomes, objection to entry to the European Economic Community, rising food prices and all the rest. He has rather overburdened the order. If there is to be an extra five years of operation, that has nothing to do with a transition period but merely that an order for five years is apt, if renewed, to last another five years.
To what extent are mink and coypu farms flourishing? I expect that mink farming is probably expanding because there is a demand for the product, but I imagine that coypu farming is declining because nutria or musquash, although a relatively cheap animal fur, has been undercut by man-made furs of nylon and similar artificial products. One answer to the hon. Member, therefore, is that in the range of fur products there is something within the reach of the purse of anyone.
But if the coypu farms should shrink it does not necessarily follow that coypus themselves are not currently increasing, and I should like an indication of the extent of the present problem. It is true that as a result of what was virtually a paramilitary campaign between 1962 and 1965 their numbers were very greatly reduced, but pockets remained, and coypus multiply remarkably quickly considering the hostile temperature they experience in the Broads as compared with their native habitat, and considerable damage is done to river banks. Therefore, though I welcome the renewal of the order, I should like to know just how big the problem is and by what means it is hoped to keep up the pressure.
The hon. Member referred to the withdrawal of the subsidy to rabbit clearance societies. That withdrawal does not mean that rabbit clearance societies have ceased to exist. It was never the practice of the wartime agricultural committees, as committees, to march out in search of coypus. Their disappearance will not greatly weaken the forces deployed against the coypu, but this animal is a

serious pest and I hope that we can finally get it under control.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I echo the various expressions of good will towards the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State on her elevation to the Front Bench. While I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) about the dangers of coypus, I should like the hon. Lady to tell us the Government's position on the derating of licensed mink and coypu farms. Normally, these are agricultural endeavours, and if the Government include the keeping of coypu and mink within the ambit of agricultural activities I should be interested to hear what the Government's thinking is on the inclusion of mink and coypus licensed farms for agricultural derating purposes.
There can be no doubt that among the nastiest rodents that the animal kingdom produces mink and coypus run each other pretty closely as being undesirable. As one who has a mink farm on the border of his constituency, I have no desire to see these mink cross the border as feral mink and do the damage they are so easily capable of doing. Equally, in the Norfolk area I accept everything said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South about the damage that feral coypus can do to river banks and so on. I ask where the relationship lies between the proper wish to control the licensed fur prduction of these animals and the equally proper requirement that feral stocks of these animals should be eradicated.
Then there is the decision of the Government on the importation of the skins of very rare species which are the alternative in some cases to mink and nutria. It is all very well to limit and declare as undesirable feral mink and nutria, but unless one does this with a clear programme as to what one does about serval, leopard, tiger and other environmentally-at-risk species, one is not closing the right door. No one questions that mink and coypus are despicable, horrid little rodents, but one is concerned that, in closing the door or attempting to shut it against these nasty brutes one is not effectively controlling sealskins, leopard skins, tiger skins, serval and all


the other conservation-risk skins which are at risk nationally.
Therefore, while agreeing on the desirability of the orders, I ask the hon. Lady, in looking at the position of rate grant for the proper production of furs from these two animals, also to look at the position of the importation of those wild animals at tremendous risk which we still permit and which are the competition in the furrier trade, at least for the mink and, at the cheaper end of the trade, for the coypu and the nutria. Unless one gets these two factors in balance, however desirable these orders may be, they will not effectively deal with the rather wider problem of international conservation of at-risk species.
No one wants to have an uncontrolled feral population of mink or coypu in this country, and to that extent we are in entire agreement with the spirit and content of the two orders.
However they do not go far enough, and what one wants is much more effective control over the utilisation of alternative pelts from at-risk species in the furrier trade.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I join with my colleagues in welcoming the hon. Lady to the Government Front Bench. At the same time, it is rather ironic that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) should at last have managed to produce something which has general support in the House, he having vacated office in that Ministry.
I welcome these orders. While I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) in his value judgments of these animals which we are discussing, I think we have here an example where the interruption of the balance of nature produces undesirable results. These animals are essentially non-indigenous. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) touched upon the very severe damage which was done to large parts of East Anglia when these animals were in their heyday, particularly to drainage channels and the destruction of river banks. It might be that if the orders were not passed these animals would proliferate to such an extent that they would become wholesale throughout the

country and particularly in the West Country and in Somerset.
There is under the orders a responsibility to report to the Ministry the presence of coypus if they are not kept under licence. I would like the hon. Lady to tell me whether the Ministry has sufficient staff to cope with this problem, particularly bearing in mind that, following the widespread incidence of myxomatosis, the rabbit population now shows substantial signs of resurgence. Is the Ministry's staff able to cope with the additional burden put upon it by these orders? I shall be most obliged if in her reply, the hon. Lady will deal with this point.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I echo the congratulations to the hon. Lady and I should like briefly to ask her two questions. First, is it the Governments' desire and intention that as long as there is a danger from these animals in the wild in this country the Government will be willing to reintroduce the order if necessary—if the present Government are still in office at the appropriate time—or are we seeing the last order of this kind, the last likely to be made under the Act of 1932?
That brings me to my second question. There may be no significance in the terminal date of 31st December, 1977, but can the hon. Lady assure us that there is in these orders, or in the Act which gives them their statutory force, nothing which would in any way be inconsistent with any of our Common Market obligations or under the secondary legislation within the Common Market itself?

10.9 p.m.

Mrs. Fenner: I should like to try to deal with the points made by hon. Members. First, with reference to the comments by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), there is no significance about the date. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) said, it is fairly usual when there is in a previous order a five-year period to repeat the five-year period in a subsequent order.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) mentioned the Common Market regulations. There are no comparable regulations in Europe and


there is no significant connection between 1977 and our entry into the Market.
I would add that there is now no coypu farming in this country.
The rabbit clearance grant was extended to cover control operations against coypus in 1960 with good results. By the end of 1965 it had achieved the objective of killing more than 136,000 coypus. The fact that 2,196 coypus were killed during 1971 outside the containment area demonstrates the need for continued close control.
The county agricultural committees have been mentioned. There is no vacuum because they have been replaced by the regional panels, which are now getting down to work. I accept that they do not have exactly the same functions, but there is no vacuum.
I was asked why we should grant-aid coypu control and not rabbit control. It is Government policy that occupiers should be responsible for controlling pests on their own land, but the coypu is a special case. Its breeding grounds are now largely confined to remote marshes and almost impenetrable areas of the Norfolk Broads, which are not occupied in any normal sense of the word. Rabbits on the other hand are wide-ranging and often live and breed on farmland.
It is entirely reasonable to expect farmers to control rabbits on their own land and it is their legal obligation to do so. But it would be unreasonable to attempt to deal with the coypu in the same way as the rabbit. The damage that the coypu could do if it broke out from the Broads would involve far more than the damage to crops that rabbits do.
The coypu could also damage river banks and it is a potential carrier of disease. The problem is to keep it confined to its present area in the hope that one day it can be completely exterminated. There is therefore no comparison between the justification for Government assistance in coypu control and the policy that in general the occupiers who suffer the damage should be responsible for controlling the pests on their own land.

Mr. Buchan: The argument is not mine, but that of the present Leader of the House.

Mrs. Fenner: The number of coypus killed during 1971 bears out the argument that is now deployed.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West mentioned his interpretation of the Act. I cannot answer him exactly tonight, but I will take his considered wisdom—he has some experience in these matters—and see whether I can understand the matter. He discussed what the trade should do, but in doing so he dealt with the subject of taxation and he will appreciate that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South asked whether mink farming and coypu farming were flourishing. There are now no longer any coypu farms, as I said, and we are dealing with the progeny of the original escapers from those farms. Mink farming is flourishing. Its stock has been steadily expanding and the export turnover is around the £1 million mark. There are 18 licences for coypus, but they are all now for zoos and wildlife parks.
I should like to write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) about the rather complicated subject of the derating of licensed mink and coypu farms. I take his point about the other conservation risk skins, but I do not think it is wholly appropriate to the order and no doubt he will find a suitable time to raise the matter.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Hugheses are extremely common in this place, but it is the hon. Member for Durham rather than the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

Mrs. Fenner: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) raised the question of staff. There is no indication that the staff at the Ministry are finding any difficulty in coping with the work which will arise under these orders. The hon. Member mentioned the situation which arose during the great rabbit scare involving myxomatosis but there is no indication that anything like such a situation will now occur. It seems clear that in view of the continued success of the trapping of coypus the staff at the Ministry are fully able to cope.
Hon. Members have mentioned the orders in relation to the European Economic Community. I must tell the House that the Community has no regulations of this sort.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Renfrew, West for his very kind comments and also the comments made from both sides of the House, a courtesy which is so often accorded to those who stand at this Box for the first time. I

very much appreciate what has been said.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Coypus (Keeping) Order 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

WHITEHALL AND PARLIAMENT SQUARE

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: This debate concerns the future of Whitehall and Parliament Square, and particularly the people who work there and those from all over the world who have the right to visit, and, indeed, the pleasure of visiting, this historic part of London. I know that the dispersal of some of those who work here has an important bearing on the future of the existing buildings, as does the disposition of the hundreds of thousands and, indeed, millions of visitors who will want to see them. This also affects well-mannered newcomers among these buildings—for newcomers there must be.
There are parts of this area which are so historic and familiar that they cannot willingly be destroyed. My hon. Friend will know of the intense public feeling about a number of these buildings, and, indeed, of the strong feeling which exists in the House—a feeling which I have the privilege of representing since I do not speak in this debate only for myself.
I come straight away to the Foreign Office and its fellows, the India Office and Home Office, which are all part of the same block. Their exterior is familiar to us all. I believe that the exterior has no enemies, and there is much that is very fine inside the building too. There are the courts—namely, the Durbar Court and the Foreign Office Court—and there are some fine interiors in the Foreign Office and in the other buildings. We must strive to remove some of the crowded inmates and to rehabilitate the rest of the interior, but we should seek to retain all that is best inside and, of course, the exteriors.
I come to the question of Bryden's Treasury, which is the last great imperial building constructed in this part of London, and is now revealed in all its splendour by the efforts of my hon.

Friend and his right hon. predecessor. Surely nobody would wish to sweep that away. It might require a new interior to come up to modern standards, but I hope that the circular court within it will be retained.
Much emotion has been displayed about Richmond Terrace. It might be said that a case for its retention cannot be made out on purely stylistic grounds and that there are many finer terraces, but it must be pointed out that it is a terrace with a most human scale, and this alone must give reason for its retention. Also to be borne in mind is its influence on possible new neighbours which may one day adjoin it. I believe that all this makes its retention highly desirable, if not imperative.
What of the use to be made of the interior of Richmond Terrace? Should it be preserved? I hope that my hon. Friend will not shut his mind to the idea that it should once again become residences for people. It might be difficult to convert the interior for offices. Not all the interior is ruined, and it would not be a bad idea if some of those who work in this area were able to live near their work.
We come, then, to Scotland Yard, the most celebrated part of which is Norman Shaw (North). It is much admired and an important example of its period. In an improved setting it could be greatly enhanced. What is more, the building was reprieved even by Martin-Buchanan in the Whitehall Plan, though that is not its greatest ally. A ministerial edict in this House made it clear that the Government regarded the interior of Norman Shaw (North), and, I believe, the rest of the building, as unfit for permanent use by the Civil Service. However, I suggest that the House of Commons will be delighted to have the use of that building until our facilities are expanded. I shall come to that problem in a moment.
Perhaps I might even drag from my hon. Friend a hint—I hope that he will go even further—that he is prepared to look at the possibility of this House having the use of Norman Shaw. It cannot have been promised to anyone else, because it is under a threat of demolition. So I am getting the first word in for the House of Commons. If I were a shop steward I should be shaking my


fist and demanding the use of Norman Shaw. But as I am not and as I believe that other methods have better results, I make a polite request fortified by the support of dozens of hon. Members to whom I have spoken in recent days.
If we keep Norman Shaw, are we to retain Curtis Green? If we do that, it is somewhat unfinished at one end and skilful work will have to be done to make it attractive alongside Richmond Terrace.
If those buildings are retained, there will be ample opportunities in the surrounding area for the architects of today. Whitehall is a living development. Lest there are those here who view that prospect with alarm, I hope that they will take the trouble to meet the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a man of infinite common sense, and some of his new council. If hon. Members have a chance to meet some of those gentlemen they will realise that not all architects are exhibitionists.
That brings me, coincidentally, to the proposed new parliamentary building, and I do not want to suggest that it is an exhibitionist's work of art. That is far from the case. It has many implacable enemies in this House and outside it. I shall refer to the winning design in the competition en passant.
It has been condemned by many because it is just too damned dull. It is also very large. It might have stood a better chance if it had not had to be so large. If we rethought some of our needs and reorganised ourselves a little more in this Palace it might not have to be so large.
The problem of disguising its horizontal emphasis with vertical members has now been attempted by the architects. I am sorry that very few hon. Members saw the revised model that was brought here recently. No doubt there will be another opportunity. The winning design has been much improved by its architects, and it has also been realigned with regard to the existing streets, in addition to being slightly reduced in height.
Hon. Members would do well to look at the model more closely, and I believe that we should have a debate in this House before Christmas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction appears to agree with me. Of course, it is the job of my right hon.

Friend the Leader of the House to find time for it, but I know that my hon. Friend will use his influence. We ought to discuss the matter here before Christmas if possible.
Provided that we can find ourselves somewhere else to perch in terms of temporary offices meanwhile, I do not believe that anyone will quarrel with the idea of clearing the proposed site. If it were cleared with all speed we could undertake some valuable archaeology without the rush that we had in New Palace Yard. The cleared site might make for clearer-headed decisions about any future building.
New Palace Yard is at present an ocean of mud resembling a lunar landscape. The Leader of the House, when speaking about this matter not so long ago, confirmed that this underground car park was no selfish whim of Members of Parliament; indeed, it could be linked with other underground car parks and roads to remove a great deal of the surface service traffic from this area for the benefit of all who work here and our hundreds of thousands of visitors.
How much progress has been made since our last debate towards the removal of all the heavy through traffic from this area? Is this our aim? It certainly ought to be. We should have a pedestrian precinct in a greater Parliament Square twice the size of the present square. We should also eventually clear away all those buildings in Great George Street which obscure Bryden's Treasury and present their undistinguished rear elevations to Broad Sanctuary.
If we are to have a Government conference centre in the area, it should not be on the old Colonial Office site. We should rebuild Storey's Gate and have our Government conference centre high enough to obscure the proposed new building on Queen Anne's Mansions. Sir Basil Spence defended his building on the ground that it would be largely invisible. Let us make it completely invisible. Let us make our conference centre high enough to obscure it from Parliament Square.
Passing along that side of the square past Central Hall we come to Abbey House, an undistinguished building, which used to be the Conservative Central Office. There is no need for a Queen


Anne's Mansions monster to be rebuilt there. I understand that the owners are anxious to redevelop in harmony with an enlarged and enhanced Parliament Square. A skilful architect can do something in close proximity to Hawksmoors towers of the Abbey. The Ruskin Gothick Abbey Gateway we should certainly retain.
Middlesex Guildhall, Art Nouveau Gothick, could be retained and cleaned up, and also Central Hall. Let us also clean up the Abbey and remove the corrugated iron roof and replace it with something better.
St. Margaret's is now revealed to our gaze because the trees have been cut down. Others will take years to grow. That, too, needs a little outside treatment.
The Palace of Westminster requires cleaning. It is only a question of choosing the technique and the Palace of Westminster can be cleaned. Public money may be needed on other buildings. If they have not the resources, perhaps a little cosmetic restoration might come from public funds.
We want Parliament Square laid out anew keeping all the things we know so well. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has some goods news about the Churchill statue.

Mr. John Tilney: As Chairman of the Churchill Memorial Statue Committee, I welcome the news that the Minister is to look at the statue early in December.

Mr. Cooke: I am sure we are all delighted to hear that.
There are many familiar objects in Parliament Square, and I believe that from time to time we should see others join their company. If some of the ideas which I have broached were carried out—they need not all be done at once—I believe that we should have a Parliament Square worthy of the name of the heart of the Commonwealth where people in their hundreds of thousands can gather, enjoy themselves, and appreciate what they can hardly see now for the thundering traffic.
The Abbey is gradually learning a little about crowd management. The Palace of Westminster has much to learn.
I hope that in future we shall have special days with fuller, well instructed tours, in Westminster Hall a parliamentary archive—I do not call it a museum—and a viewing theatre where one can see what is going on here, and perhaps a walk-round gallery round the Commons Chamber so that people can look down through the existing windows. Not everybody wants to sit in the Public Gallery for half an hour.
Tourism pollutes. Tourists destroy what they aim to enjoy. Therefore, we must devise new ways of getting people into this historic area. They must park their coaches a substantial distance away and come in by some new underground link. We could then make Parliament Square better than many of the great squares abroad.
I should have liked to digress into St. James's Park, but I will save that topic for another occasion as there is hardly sufficient time to deal with it now.
I hope that something will be done to remove the clutter on Horseguards. Why must it be covered with parked cars or dismembered scaffolding after some great State event for most of its life? If my hon. Friend was a Prince of the Church in Rome or Florence, he would by now have commissioned a Bernini to design a pair of removable fountains which could freshen the air when the place was not being used as a parade ground.
I could say something about the succession of slab-like buildings which march upstream from Lambeth Palace. The Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council—or is it the Lambeth Council?—and the other local councils have much to answer for in that direction. The GLC's pile of concrete dinner plates just across the end of Westminster Bridge is not a very happy new building, and then there is York House, which is now partially obscured, and St. Thomas's Hospital. The hospital is a monster, not built as we were told it would be when we saw a model here 12 years ago. Such buildings wear out quickly, so let us hope that we may one day see a significant part of the European Parliament here in London and complimenting this most famous Parliament house in the world.
The future of all this historic neighbourhood is one of infinite possibility and we should not rush headlong into it. The time has now come to take a few careful steps, and I hope this third debate which I have had the privilege to initiate on the subject will help to carry the living history of Westminster a further confident step into the future.

10.31 p.m.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I intervene in the debate for only one minute to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in what he said. I also wish to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction back to the Department. I sat with him through the 351 hours, or whatever it was, of the Housing Finance Bill, and I am delighted that to see him back here now and out of Northern Ireland.
I hope that something will be done soon to stop all the talking about what will happen in Bridge Street so that something can be done.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for initiating the debate, and I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on his new appointment.
In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred to St. Margaret's, Westminster, and to the Abbey. It is essential that they should be cleaned and restored, and it would seem a most fitting gesture for the Government to make available public money for the work to be carried out and thus provide a permanent memorial of our entry into Europe. That would be the most significant contribution they could make, a much more lasting and enjoyable monument than any fanfare that they could produce.

10.34 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): I would first thank my hon. Friends for their kind remarks about me and say how delighted I am not only to be back from Northern Ireland—although I enjoyed my time there very much—but to have the oppor-

tunity of dealing with some of the problems raised this evening. It should be widely recognised that, although this may be an Adjournment debate, there is, I believe, an abnormally large attendance of hon. Members. It would be even larger at a normal time of day. The attendance shows the keen interest in this subject and, I suspect, the very wide approval of a great many of my hon. Friends' remarks.
When I see my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), Cannock (Mr. Cormack), Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), Ludlow (Mr. More), Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), Dorset, North (Mr. David James), and Harrow, West (Mr. John Page)—I think I have mentioned most of them—and two hon. Members opposite, as well as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and two other members of the Government present, I consider that to be a large attendance for an Adjournment debate.
I make the point only because those outside may not realise that there is very keen interest in the problem in the House and a determination that we should take the right decisions and reach decisions which our descendants will welcome and will not curse us for.
I believe passionately that when the history of the development in Whitehall and Parliament Square comes to be written my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, will go down as someone who has fought hard, successfully and skilfully and in a cause that has proved to be completely worth while.
It is a great pleasure for me to answer the debate tonight. I have had the pleasure of answering my hon. Friend's Adjournment debates in the past on this topic—perhaps less satisfactorily than he would have wished—and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has also dealt with some of his points.
I cannot answer everything that has been said, but I will consider all the points, and the Government will take careful note of them.
My hon. Friend's deep interest is shared by the Government, and during the very short time that my right hon. and learned Friend has been Secretary of State I have


discussed these matters with him a number of times. He, too, is deeply conscious of the importance of decisions taken about the neighbourhood of this House and the centre of London. I believe that, with his deep and long experience of London, he is peculiarly fitted to be the Secretary of State to deal with these important problems at this time.
When Minister of Public Building and Works, my right hon. and learned Friend commissioned the Martin-Buchanan Report in 1964. It was felt that developments since Sir Leslie Martin's plan for Whitehall of 1965 made it essential that there should be a fresh comprehensive look at the area. It was right at the time. Sir Leslie's study was particularly valuable in clarifying the right land uses for Whitehall.
However, the architectural solution that Sir Leslie advocated based on the premise of cleared sites may no longer be desirable or acceptable. The Government accept that the right balance must be found between the conservation of the many fine historic buildings in this key area of London and the operational needs of a modern and efficient Government.
The Willis Inquiry, set up in 1970, was confined by the terms of reference to an investigation of the previous Administration's proposals to demolish all the buildings on the Richmond Terrace—New Scotland Yard site and erect a new block of offices to house about 4,000 civil servants.
I recall that, before the General Election, when I spoke from that Dispatch Box on the subject of arts and amenities, again supported by my hon. Friend, I went on a deputation, among many other more distinguished people, to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was then Minister, to request an inquiry into this proposal.
Mr. Willis was asked to pay particular regard to the intention to demolish Richmond Terrace and the former headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, and at the inquiry strong representations were made that the listed historic buildings on the site should be preserved.
In this case the decision has been complicated not only by the economic considerations affecting the development of the site but by the Government's responsibility for accommodating the

Civil Service having regard both to economy and to the machinery of modern government.
In addition, the reprovision and, if possible, the improvement of the shops, pubs and other amenities have to be taken into account in reaching the right decision for this area. Alternative accommodation must also be provided for the police at present occupying Cannon Row, which lies on the Parliamentary Building site.
Whitehall is one of the most important historic areas in this country and the presence of listed historic buildings adds to the complexities of deciding upon the right kind of new development. The criteria for determining the quality of a building are drawn up by the listing committee of the Historic Buildings Council; grading of individual buildings is carried out by the Department's own investigators.
Two of the buildings on the site, Norman Shaw (North) and the Old Public Offices—what we commonly call the Foreign Office and the Home Office—are Grade I listed buildings. Grade I buildings comprise only about 3 per cent. of all those listed. It is generally accepted that a Grade I building is one of national rather than local importance. No Grade I building has ever been intentionally destroyed. I can assure the House that the Government have paid close attention to the value which my Department's investigators and the Historic Buildings Council have placed on these buildings in reaching a decision on the future of Whitehall.
The future of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, although it did not come within Mr. Willis's terms of reference, is also naturally being considered in conjunction with plans for the redevelopment of the southern end of Whitehall. Here again, the same problem arises, that of reconciling the requirements of modern Government Departments for up-to-date and efficient working conditions with the demands widely felt outside and inside the House that this notable historic building should be preserved.
Mr. Willis's report has been of great assistance to the Government in reaching a decision on these complex matters. I express my thanks to him. Copies of Mr. Willis's report have tonight been deposited in the Vote Office.
Mr. Willis found that there is no objection to the development of this site for Government offices to the maximum economic extent unless other factors—namely, the presence of listed buildings—make this undesirable. He agreed with the weight of expert opinion in favour of a development which would retain the New Scotland Yard building and the facade of Richmond Terrace, and he recommended accordingly. He considered that Norman Shaw (South) and 47 Parliament Street are buildings of less importance which should not be allowed to impede development.
The Government accept in principle the conclusions of the report and will plan the redevelopment of the site in the light of these recommendations. We shall ensure that the architectural design will be compatible with the final design for the new Parliamentary Building immediately to the south. The Government have also decided to preserve the external facades of the Old Public Offices. This building currently houses part of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but it provides very unsatisfactory working conditions.
The fine interiors in the north-west corner of the building will be kept, but we shall be putting to the local planning authority, under the usual procedure, a proposal to reconstruct the remainder so as to provide modern office accommodation within the external facades.
I assure my hon. Friend that the splendid view from St. James's Park which all

of us have appreciated and still do, and the distinguished west side of Whitehall—famous sights to Londoners and millions of visitors—will be preserved. I also assure the House that the facade of the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Richmond Terrace will remain, as will the Norman Shaw (North) building.
The decision to preserve these important buildings has been reached only after the most careful study of the arguments. The Government believe that in the unique situation of Whitehall conservation in this case is the right course.
I am delighted to give at least this token: the Government are seized of the importance of these areas and these buildings and of the widely-held feeling, inside and outside the House, and in Government, that it is important to preserve those I have mentioned this evening. I hope that the House will feel that the Government have been responsive to the views of the House and of my hon. Friend.
During my comparatively short period as a Member of the House, nothing has given me more pleasure than to be able to announce these decisions.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I thank my hon. Friend most warmly. This is a great beginning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.